Blue eyes? - Page 2

Pedigree Database


by Hundmutter on 26 March 2020 - 05:03

Sunny I'm sorry, I thought your post was being a little dismissive of that "aftermath" (strong evidence for which is appearing on FaceBook etc daily !) - but on expansion I can see you are not. A LOT of people producing Pandas do still seem to maintain the 'purity' of the breeding, but yes it does beg questions from the experienced, doesn't it ? The only other option is that they are SO in-breeding on dogs they know carry Panda (even if not expressed) just to get more of them, that (like our 'coats & colours' bunch) they are flying in the face of perpetuating worse genetic crimes on the breed.

NatureDragon,  Oh yes; there is an obvious difference in the pattern being spread out more in the US over a bigger population and a larger territory; but here on our tiny little islands, not only is it more obvious what is going on but it is probably easier to keep tabs on !

A belated move by the Kennel Club to list some colours as "Not recognised" has helped very little; the pups are mainly those listed by their breeders as silly combinations. ("Gold AND Sable", e.g.- I am assuming / hoping that includes any submitted as Panda). It certainly has not meant refusal to take Litter Registration money. Nor does it do anything about very long and curly, or wiry coats; or lack of parental health testing, when that is not compulsary. When taxed with what many of us see as a decline away from the UK's KC having 'the best' reputation, the KC simply maintain it's a way to ensure they can at least communicate with our less fastidious breeders. (Not that there seems much evidence of unusual efforts to do so.LOL) And of course there are also plenty of puppy farmers who do not Register. And plenty of both sorts who look after their (money making) 'pets' perfectly well [in other respects than your typical 'mill' conditions], and so deny they are doing anything wrong.


by Sunsilver on 26 March 2020 - 05:03

"The only other option is that they are SO in-breeding on dogs they know carry Panda (even if not expressed) just to get more of them, that (like our 'coats & colours' bunch) they are flying in the face of perpetuating worse genetic crimes on the breed."

Um, Hund, I think you missed what I said about Panda being a DOMINANT gene, so there's no such thing as "carrying for Panda (even if not expressed)"

Since double Panda is lethal, Panda breeders will have to keep bringing in new blood, as Panda to Panda is going to produce small litters.

That's one saving grace - no one breeding Panda to Panda will be able to get 10-12 pups in a litter!


by Hundmutter on 26 March 2020 - 13:03

Didn't entirely 'miss' it, just becoming very sceptical about explanations involving 'Dominant' genes; the more I read and find out about the amount of information on the science of genetics that we humans DON'T yet know for sure.  [For instance, compare arguments re all-black coats, - 'Dominant Black' gene, or no ?]

There has to be a lot more worked out about the way alleles are grouped and what exactly turns those groups (multi factoral genes) 'On' and 'Off' in relation to other dogs ostensibly carrying the same genetic patterns, before we can be quite as dogmatic as we used to be. IMO.

And anybody can make claims about the apparent origin of a trait in a family of dogs, and who is to counter those claims without lengthy test matings * ? You say Frankie was thoroughly investigated but can we trust  that, really ?

Certainly there seem to be more than a few more Panda-marked about (c/f those many FB piccies) than one would expect just on chance emergence, and you don't generally get 12 Liver pups in a 12-strong litter either, its still worth their pursuit apparently to be able to sell 'chocolate' dogs.

* & how (and by whom) was "Panda to Panda matings = lethal" shown / proved, anyway ? Folk used to believe Sable to Sable might be lethal, once upon a time, until it became obvious it wasn't.


by Sunsilver on 27 March 2020 - 00:03

Hund, the location of the gene is know. They just have to test the chromosomes, they way they do now for other known genes, like the long coat, or the DM gene. Double Panda embryos die early in utero.


by Hundmutter on 27 March 2020 - 05:03

Sunny, thanks for those links. In the second, it says "For the Homozygous state , no live dogs(ie pups) were observed" - not how many litters / matings were tested. (I'll try to read the full body of their Report later). I remain sceptical; too many reported incidences, where exceptions to genetic 'rules' have appeared, themselves partly leading to the current day shift of emphasis to studying ON & OFF mechanisms  on gene loci ...

However. I simply offered the 'Option'. Let me point out that Kennel Clubs are notorious for their occasional failure in investigating anything too far, if it threatens Registration Income. How far back in any two pedigees do you think they actually check ancestry to ensure no lies (about anything, not just dodgy Panda blood) about a litter have crept in, and pedigrees been faked ? The Dog world operates on Trust - and surely enough breeders have been caught out offering: fake info, fake certfication, substitute dogs, yada yada yada. It is so much easier to run a computerised check these days than it used to be, but nonetheless, do they ? Always ?  And if a lie gets through successfully, does it not continue to get through successfully, even unto the nth generation, unless some astute researcher or interested party manages to expose it ? Not all dogs are ID DNA'd, by a long way, where KCs do not insist.

Also, given what we've said about propensity to 'puppy farm' with or without Papers, - and for all I know every one of those Panda pets on FB came from an unregistered litter, - perhaps claims about not introducing other breeds to any breeding containing Frankie are all true. Perhaps some other examples of the mutated gene were / have been culled out.That does not eradicate producing puppies with ostensible 'Panda' markings by introducing that other, Husky or ACD or Border Collie, or whatever breed with a lot of white bits (AND associated blue eyes, to a GSD 'other parent' (whether or not an unculled specimen, with even a very rare mutation)  - thus making you look twice, as you yourself said.  They are certainly coming from somewhere, and they are certainly being passed off as 'GSDs' to (pet, maybe some 'working') buyers - which means somewhere along the line their gene makeup will get back into GSDs-proper, even if only non-KC Registered stock (and who knows, given what I said about checking, how long that state remains ?).


by Sunsilver on 27 March 2020 - 09:03

For the dogs that are known Pandas, descended from Franka: Expression of the panda gene is exhibited openly on any coat that is not already white. Markings can show up anywhere on the body, but are more centrally focused on the paws or legs, chest or neck, and muzzle. There are no known cases of pedigree verified panda German Shepherds having white that extends beyond the shoulder blades onto the main section of the body.

That's one way mixed breeds can be identified, and since these animals are sold primarily as pets by people who are not serious breeders, I don't doubt there are fakes out there!

The expression of white markings in other dog breeds follow the Irish spotting pattern, and are on the "S" gene locus, so very different from the Panda shepherd genetics.

by Rik on 27 March 2020 - 14:03

yea the Panda is a real GSD, that just happened to mutate in the hands of a very savvy puppy seller after 100 years of SV Breeding and very detailed descripitions of founding GSD, by SV Judges/koermiesters, for that 100+ years.

and this guy is real also. here is a picture that proves it. and he is also in Canada.





by Hundmutter on 28 March 2020 - 03:03

Ha ! Thank you for making me spurt my breakfast coffee all over, Rik ;-)


by Sunsilver on 28 March 2020 - 11:03

I DO remember that when Frankie was first mentioned on this board, many people INSISTED the dog couldn't possibly be purebred, and another dog must have hopped the fence, and mated with her. Of course, genetic testing proved this was wrong.

Three guesses who one of those 'many people' was... :D :D LOL!


Oboy, SOO not gonna dig that thread got pretty heated!  :o

by Rik on 31 March 2020 - 16:03

SS, I certainly am in no position to debate genetics with a medical professional.

but here is the issues I see as a layman:

UC Davis identified a mutant gene causing (white) color splashing on the GSD. I can understand mutant genes and color changes. White lions a perfect and well documented example.though the eyes did not change.

but that does not explain why the dog has:

1. a specked muzzle, not a GSD trait, but evident in maybe a half dozen or so breeds only.

2. blue eyes, also not a trait in the GSD, whose history can be traced back to the beginning in both word and picture here on PDB, as well as several recorded history books and 100+ years of every GSD registered with the SV having been examined by a koermiester.

3. looking at the progeny, one with the exact coloration of a border collie. that seems a very potent mutation.

4. if anything is evident in the GSD, it is that patterns are uniform. muzzle, saddle, B/T, B/R, B/Silver, Sable, Blues or liver, patterns match. maybe a small spot on chest or toes, but like I said, pictures here all the way back to the very beginning. but this "mutant" gene also seems to have altered patterns? do a google on "Panda GSD" it's comical.

so, while UC Davis did seem to address the color splashing, there seems to be several "miraculous" mutations that occurred in this one dog that did not get addressed. unless of course, that one gene caused them all.

in which case,
I'm just dumbazz,

in the other case,
a kinder, gentler,


Contact information  Disclaimer  Privacy Statement  Copyright Information  Terms of Service  Cookie policy  ↑ Back to top