Very interesting info on sables! - Page 3

For some fun

I can claim that I can understand what a non-English speaker writes in English better than a native English speaker would understand the same, the reason is we tend to think in our own language while writing in English.

Example, the word homozygous we all understand it the same but we non-English speakers would use it in wrong places.

There is no homozygous sable
to an English speaking man would mean there is no sable who has (sable + sable) genes
The non-English writer might have wanted to say there is no homozygous sable that only produces homozygous sables when mated with other colors. How do I know? simply because I do the same mistake.
Better choice is to say there is no homozygous sable who only produces homozygous sables when bred to mates of other colors. A weaker choice is to decide to say dominant homozygous which still might not be perfectly clear.

OK maybe I am misunderstanding something here.I understand that a homozygous sable is one that only produces sable. Not for generations, for the here and now. My boy's parents could not be homozygous because their parents were not both sable. My boy was bred twice--once to a blk/tan and once to a solid black. All the puppies were/are sable. Also while we are into this discussion I will throw this in. I had been told by someone on this board if a sable has the black pencil marks and tar heels he carries the black recessive. Well again my boy has these markings also and again he only throws sables. Next month when I go to the GSDCA Nationals and I see Carmen this will be my pick his brain subject. Someone in another post said something about keep on doing research and it is exactly what my plan is.

I am also going to add this. I have been doing a little research on this and in all I had read nowhere does it say anything other than what I have been taught--that a dog can be homozygous for sable and not have generations behind it, which makes absolutely no sense anyway..............

Ibriham, this discussion has taken a sudden turn into the retarded zone.  No single parent EVER determines the full genotype of the offspring.  A homozygous sable will ONLY ever produce a homozygous sable IF the other parent is a sable phenotype.

OK I went back and reread what Ibrahim had written and finally I understand what he is talking about. But that has absolutely nothing to do with a homozygous sable. PERIOD. I can breed one of my sables to a non sable--other than my male--I guarantee you without ever being bred none of my other sables are homozygous because as I said in another post I don't breed sable to sable. Anyway I can breed one of my girls say to a black and I know there's a very good chance of getting sables. But on down the line, if I breed one of her pups and a descendant of that pup certain ways, I can end up with a litter of non sable pups. Sure that's nothing new because it takes a sable parent to make a sable, but again it has nothing to do with a dog that is dominant for sable. You guys are trying to take this somewhere where it is confusing and English or another language has absolutely nothing to do with it. Genetics are genetics whatever language they are discussed in.

Daryl thank you. I read your post and then decided to go back and reread the other posts and yes I was confused because I thought they were trying to say something else. As I said in the beginning, I am no expert, but I do know what I know. And when I know what I know I stick with it. And I am sticking with what I have said about this. And no I haven't learned everything from my mentor or hers--I have disagreed with them about certain things. Yes I consider them experts, yes I consider the Arlett breeder an expert and I like those dogs, but it does not change the fact that these experts are also human beings and they make mistakes. And what they believe according to their life experiences doesn't necessarily make it the golden rule--it just makes it what they have experienced.

And once again I will say, EVERYONE is entitled to their own opinion.  It doesn't mean it is correct or incorrect, but just a matter of opinion.  

Vonissk, you are right, you know what you know and thats what you are sticking too.  Oddly enough, thats exactly how everyone else feels.  Nothing wrong with it.  Just a matter of opinion, And EVERYONE is right because its what they believe.   

Aside from genetics, the idea behind the article was, using sable colored GSD in a showline breeding program is good, adds benefits to the line, moreover when you use sable you can still get black/tan after few generations if you wish to.

When a sable has the black pencilling it usually has black recessive color, but not necessarily, it could be homoztgous and has the pencilling, this was discussed in an old thread and If I'm not mistaken it was Daryl vs Eichenluft who proved that a sable having no black recessive  had the black pencilling, so it's not a rule. I will try to find that post and repost it.

Back to original topic, I don't think Margit's intention was an article on genetics, rather it was about her personal experience with show sables in her line. I think translation to English wasn't the best, as there are many contradicting phrases in the article, knowing who Margit is leads me to think it's the translation. 

It is not Margit's finding that a homozygous sable is always short haired, that is what breeders noticed over many generations of breeding. 

The disagreement about the toe penciling and the tar heels has some posts by me also--as I said my boy has those too and Molly and I had the discussion about that. She kept telling me it wasn't possible. And yes I'll admit they're not as dark as the ones I have seen on bi colors but the fact remains they are there and easy enough for anyone to notice. Maybe I have a rare dog. LOL Who knows? But it doesn't matter anyway--he is my boy and he is neutered to whatever happened before can never be again.

Regardless of who says a dominant sable can't produce longhairs tells me they are lacking in their knowledge of genetics regarding that because it is a totally different gene.

Thank you Hutchins for your input. Kind of like if we were all the same, wouldn't it be a boring world? It's good to be different and to agree to disagree peacefully...........

Daryl said it all in few words, that is effective writing