Search forum
Back to German Shepherd Dog
Liked top 20
ForumsGerman Shepherd Dog > Bicolor? (137 replies)
Bicolor? by goodwink on 07 February 2011 - 16:29 |
| Let me just go ahead and apologize now for beating a dead horse with this topic, BUT...I need help!!! I have always been told that my girl was bicolor even though her papers say blk/red. I thought that she was bicolor, but these past few weeks, she has started showing a lot of tan/red behind her ears!!! I knew that a sable would change color until maturity, but I didn't know that my girl would. She is 9 months old, red/tan feet, belly tan/red, now she is getting color on face and behind ears where she was once black...I would really appreciate any information. I have read all of the articles posted previously. She is my first GSD and I don't want to sound like an idiot calling her bicolor if she isn't!!!! Is she melanistic black/tan, or faded bicolor? I'm so confused!!!! You can see her feet/back of ears in the pic where she is drinking! Thanks!!!!!  ps. Mom is "bicolor" and dad is black .bmp) .bmp)   .jpg) .bmp) |
goodwink by eichenluft on 07 February 2011 - 17:06 |
| Nope, if she has tan behind her ears she is not bicolor. In the picture she is drinking water you can also see she has lost her black toe penciling and tarheels. She will remain a very dark black/tan but not bicolor. molly |
by goodwink on 07 February 2011 - 17:08 |
| Thanks Molly....I appreciate your infor. I don't care what she is...I LOVE my girl!!!! I just want to know what to call her!!!!! She is beautiful either way!!! |
by missyfly96 on 07 February 2011 - 18:03 |
| I agree with Molly. Blk/tan, not bi-color! |
by Ibrahim on 07 February 2011 - 19:15 |
| Eichenluft, If this puppy is B/tan then her mom is B/tan too not Bicolor. Black sire + Bicolor mom won't produce a B/tan, right? Ibrahim |
by troublelinx on 07 February 2011 - 19:29 |
| My girl is a bi color. when she gets her winter undercoat, I see drey show in some spots (color from undercoat). Could this be the case with your dog)? |
troublelinx by eichenluft on 07 February 2011 - 19:57 |
| Ibraham is correct - the mother must also be dark black/tan and not true bicolor - when bred to a black, she would not produce black/tan if she were a true bicolor. molly |
by gagsd4 on 07 February 2011 - 20:44 |
| I don't know.... She looks bicolor to me. Her cheeks appear darker than the baby puppy picture. |
gagsd4 by eichenluft on 07 February 2011 - 21:05 |
| One more time (this topic has been on here so many times I can't even count anymore) - bicolors ALWAYS have black toe marks (black penciling on the top of every toe), black tarheels (distinct unfaded black on the backs of the legs behind the wrists and between hock and paw on the rear), and NO tan shadings or markings behind or around the ears, on the underbody except for distinct markings (with no shadings) eyebrows, chest, cheek patches, lower legs, and light white/tan on the under-groin area, vent and dusting on the tail frings. PERIOD. If the dog does not have toe marks/tar heels, and does have markings around ears/other parts of the body other than the distinct markings - it is not a bicolor. I've seen dogs so dark as to appear bicolor, but they are not bicolor without toemarks and tarheels. this particular dog did appear to be bicolor as a puppy, but obviously her black markings on feet and legs faded out, and she developed other shadings, so she is now not bicolor, and neither would her mother be bicolor. molly |
by Ibrahim on 07 February 2011 - 21:26 |
| Eichenluft and some very well informed members discussed bicolor in depth with examples and pictures of many dogs in previous rich threads. just search bicolor and you will find these interesting threads. Bicolor always has more debate as it is somewhat confusing, Now I understand color genetics to a very good extent and the most benefitial to me were Eichenluft's posts on this subject on this very Forum and also on The GSD forum. I take this chance to thank Eichenluft and all members who shared their knowledge and expertise on this subject. P.S: in one of the threads there was a very deep discussion between one member (very well informed, I don't remember the name) and Eichenluft that was just like a thrill movie in episodes, very very interesting Ibrahim |
by alboe2009 on 07 February 2011 - 22:16 |
| For myself; maybe this is where on another thread someone was saying that more markings should be on the paperwork, I think for/under "color" box for registering, or as identifying marks? Can't remember. Now for my dogs, they are "sables" on their paperwork but for the box "color" there is also a list and one on the list is Bi-color. Does it hurt saying one and not the other? All my dogs, (3), have the pencil marks on their toes, black on their front ? forearms, black on the back of their legs. My Czech female has a "black dot" between her 2nd and 3rd toe, not counting dew claw. On all four feet. |
alboe2009 by sable59 on 08 February 2011 - 00:59 |
| definetly b/t |
by Jenni78 on 08 February 2011 - 01:04 |
| To the OP: where are her papers from? FYI to everyone...........Germany has no designation for bicolor. |
Jenni78 by amysue on 08 February 2011 - 01:41 |
| So even if a dog is homozygous for bi-color (does not carry black) it will still have the black markings on it's toes and legs? I know with sables this usually indicates it is a black carrier. Also, this dog must not be a true bi-color?? http://www.schraderhausk9.com/farox.htm Not pointing fingers or trying to start anything, just clearifying for my knowledge. |
by Jenni78 on 08 February 2011 - 02:14 |
| Would help to see Farox's feet/backs of legs. It's hard to tell if it's a reflection or if he has light fur behind his ears. |
by goodwink on 08 February 2011 - 03:05 |
| Once again, thanks to everyone for their input!!!! According to the information, I suppose my girl is a black and tan! I would like to say that I did read the previous posts regarding this topic prior to posting this thread, but I was just clarifying the information i had read! My papers are from the USA. I was mistaken, when I pulled the pedigree to clarify, my girls mother is reg as blk/tan. I guess I was confused b/c the breeder has the dam on his website as a bicolor!!!!! I assumed my papers were the same....and as usual...we ALL know what happens when one ASSumes!!!!! Eichenluft, I tried to apologize for this topic in my first post....I know this subject is exhausted! Thanks for your expertise...I did read the previous threads on this subject....great material!!!!! |
by eichenluft on 08 February 2011 - 05:39 |
| Sables with penciling on toes are not bicolor either ;) - they are sables with toemarks - Farox is not a bicolor. GENETICALLY he is a very dark black/tan. He does not have tarheels, and I assume he does not have toemarks either (can't see the toes in the pictures). He also has shadings around the eyes and behind the ears. If he were bicolor he would only have distinct eyebrows, cheek spots (if any) and nothing behind or aroudn the ears. Many dogs colored like him are called bicolor - but they are not and genetically they are not, they will produce black/tan while bicolors will not. molly |
by Bundishep on 09 February 2011 - 10:06 |
| She is a very dark black and tan,fairly close to what many call a bi-color |
by darylehret on 09 February 2011 - 17:16 |
| Jen's right, the germans don't acknowledge it, nor do the slovaks or czechs. Because it's a designated AKC color, the U.S has adopted the term, and since AKC hasn't bothered with any official definition that I could find, our self appointed expert eichenluft has decided to define it herself. So basically, she can say bicolor “is” whatever she decides it should be, and none will be the wiser. I can't even think of another phenotype of this (or another species) that has so many conditional descriptions attatched to it! In effect, she has discounted 80 to 90% of what we'd "mistake" for bicolor, but nevertheless would reproduce it's color. The most likely truth is, that it's result of the interaction of at least two competing genes controlling the overall expression...
|
darylehret by eichenluft on 09 February 2011 - 18:23 |
| bicolor will produce bicolor or black (if the dog is not a bicolor/bicolor) but does not carry black/tan recessive, therefore cannot produce black/tan dog (unless bred to a black/tan dog or one with recessive black/tan). For instance, breeding a bicolor to a bicolor or to a black, or to a sable with black or bicolor recessive, will not produce black/tan. Black/tan (whether you claim it to be a bicolor or not) will produce black/tan or bicolor depending on the recessives the dog carries. Bicolor is what I say it is - nothing mysterious about it - except when people simply don't know what they are talking about of course. molly |
Do NOT follow this link or you will be banned from the site!