Max would Cry - Page 4

I have said what I want on the matter now I am moving on, we can all have different thoughts on the topic, getting pissy and comparing breeding color to floppy ears and actual structure problems has nothing to do with what I just stated, once again proof no one can come on these forums expressing a different opinion without it turning into verbal attacks instead of a open debate. /claps good job

Sunsilver Susie is right. All UCDavis did was a parentage check and did not remotely try to go backwards looking for a fence jumper. THEY decided it was a unique in time event. All done by folks w no history of the breed. I have noted this several times in forum discussions on Franke.

When she was a young dog and info first came out about her I corresponded w the owner who insisted she would not use or promote this - HAH. -even as she had $$$ signs dancing in her head.

We also discussed the fact that some of the very old standards may have referenced a piebald variation but it was difficult to tell because of translation issues though it was clear that whatever the color was it was deemed undesirable and selected against (yes folks by Max himself despite the often cited quote)

Because of this I also contacted several long time GSD folks including a geneticist. The consensus among us all was there were several things "off" about these dogs most noticeably the head & that and the coloration pattern most likely suggested the contamination of another breed upline from the parents.

But wait you say on the pedigree they all look like gsds. 1. As noted NO backwards testing was done so we have no way of knowing if the claimed pedigree is correct. 2. I have seen an oops litter of pups by a gsd sire & black lab bitch. If one did not know the sire by appearance alone you would think these were well bred labs. So if this bitch had also been bred to a lab sire and the owner was unaware of a fence jumper on paper & by picture you would think you were dealing w pedigree labs. So it can happen esp because over the years you can not believe the carelessness with which some people maintain there animals that I have seen.

I do not care for the Panda and Pieball's the structure is all wrong, or at least all the ones I have seen. That being said the other "Brindle German Shepherd" that people are now paying anywhere from $1,000-$2,000 because they are told its rare when in fact I guarantee back in the pedigree a malinois or dutch is responsible X German Shepherd.

I fail to see how a fence jumper could have gotten into the picture. This particular gene is DOMINANT, meaning it can only be passed on by a dog that has the piebald colouration. So, please look at Franka's pedigree and tell me just where this fence jumper might be hiding!

Genetic testing did prove that Franka's parents are indeed her parents, not the next door neighbour's mutt.

P.S. please note spelling : pie BALD, with the bald referring to white areas that look, well...BALD.

But did not prove who her grandparents were.

Also you are incorrect that it can only be passed on by a piebald IF UcDavis is to be believed.
They state her father had the gene -NOTE he is not piebald.

Doesn't ANYONE here understands how mutations work??

The MUTATION came from ONE of the father's sperm cells. Period. That does NOT mean the father had the mutation himself. He just produced ONE sperm cell with the mutation, and it happened to be the one that fertilized the egg that became Franka.

If he'd had the defective gene in all of his cells, yes, he would have been piebald himself.

Neither of the parents is piebald. The gene is dominant, meaning one of the parents had to be piebald in order for it to be expressed. If the grandparents had carried it, one of THEM would have been piebald, too. This gene CANNOT hide. That's what 'dominant' means.

The only possible conclusion to the gene's origin is that it was a spontaneous mutation in the DNA of the parent's gametes (sperm or egg).  U.C. Davis located exactly which chromosome was mutated, and matched the chromosome to the father's DNA

 

Reread your statement re one of parents must be piebald

And yes I clearly understand how mutations work. I also understand how genetics work and know there can be a difference between genotype and phenotype which is what we clearly find in her sire. BUT the Davis explanation is not the only one and appears to have some holes in it.

They claim they have documented the mutation in his germ plasma AND that it is dominant. YET he produced # of progeny but NO other piebalds. Hmmm rather strange IF it's in his germplasm that means he WILL pass it on so why no other piebalds. This was not a case where he produced ONE mutated gene in ONE sperm cell because they supposedly documented it in his germplasm (reproductive cells)

Since it has been documented in other species that the germ plasm does not always reflect the phenotype how can we be sure this is a mutation vs something passed on by a his sire w the same disconnect tween pheno & genotype her sire had. Oh right we can't because no tests were made but not to worry the big time scientist says it's so and we know scientists never make mistakes. Have you looked at some of his other work. I have and I'm not impressed.

There is also the possibility of a chimera where the cells come from an individual carrying those genes. Etc etc

Ignored on all this is it's not just the color that's wrong it's also head and body structure but we hear nothing about detected mutations in those areas - only in color.

What I never got was the choice of who "tested" these dogs. Malcolm Willis was alive then why not go to the preeminent GSD genetist in the world or at least have Davis consult with him which they did not. Perhaps there was a worry that you might not get the answer you wanted with  dollar signs dancing in your dreams?

Lets agree to disagree. This would be a non issue of the parent club had the stones to change the standard and declare all off colors as a disqualification.

As I thought I made clear above, FRANKA"S FATHER WAS NOT A PIEBALD!!  Nor did he carry the piebald gene in his normal body cells in some hidden form. A mutation happens in THE SEX CELLS (sperm or egg) when the cell is forming. Just because one sperm cell carries it, it does not mean any of the others do. Franka's father produced a sperm cell, with this mutation, which fertilized the egg that became Franka.

To give another example, Down's Syndrome is caused by an extra copy of chromosome 21 in a woman's egg cell. Just because she produces ONE Down's Syndrome child does NOT mean she is going to produce other children with Down's. Her other egg cells may be totally normal.

Same goes for Franka's father. Franka was the only one with the mutation.

As I said above, mutations occur when the sex cells are forming. The vast majority of the time, each sperm and egg cell will contain identical copies of each of the parent's chromosomes. Mutations occur in only a very small percentage of the cells, and quite often, the mutated chromosomes aren't capable of producing a viable embryo. In Franka's case, the normal copy of the gene, from her mother, was able to compensate for the mutation she inherited from Dad. But when two piebalds are mated together, and two copies of the mutation are present (homozygous for the mutation) the embryo dies in the womb.

Edit: no, they did NOT find the mutation in the father's germ plasm. They found it in Franka's, but on a gene that was identified as coming from her father. 

Please show me where it says the piebald gene was identified in the father's germ plasm. You have made that statement several times, so I am thinking you must have a source for it. Sure, the sperm that made Franka came from him, but that was ONLY one sperm cell, It could have been the only one he ever produced with that particular mutation.

Yes Sunsilver I do get all that - I'm not ignorant in this area.

You are missing the point. This was NOT a one off by UCDS own "determination". An aged egg in an older woman is a one off - it's not in her germ plasm. If it was all her eggs would have the problem. UCD claimed to have found the mutation in HIS germ plasm.IF SO & IF it's dominant tell me why he never produced another. IF it was one off they would not have detected it in HIM which is what they claimed.

Had to look this up about what Max said about color.

Max later stated in his book.

As written by Stephanitz in his book.

"Although I stated in the first chapter that a dog's colour is without any significance from the point of view of work, when judging him it cannot be completely disregarded. However, the judge should not be influenced by any artistic consideration but by the fact that a clear and strong colouring points to a healthy and hardy physical condition of the dog. Any decline in the strength of the original colour, called fading, is at the same time an urgent warning of physical weakness and lack of power resistance, especially towards diseases. Whilst an intensification of dark colour is, first and foremost the outcome of selective breeding, paling is mostly a sign of wrong breeding or overbreeding. For this reason the bearers of such colours must be considered less suitable for breeding purposes. With dogs, however, who have been bred to white colour, where the pigmentation has been retained by the skin, it is not a sign of paling but of breed. This, however, applied only to other breeds: for shepherd-dogs, both smooth and rough haired, white is forbidden and only allowed for shaggy haired ones as the descendants of the old sheep dogs bred for white."