sable genetics - Page 6

<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<

I'm not sure if you mean white x black producing black and B&T would prove this, or if the white had B&T and black siblings.  Either way it's incorrect.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

why would this not be correct?a white bred to a black can and does produce blk/tan and solid black offspring IF both dogs are recessive for black.

then again, if a white is a masked sable, then it will produce sable offspring when bred to a dark colored dog (non white, if bred to a white, you will get just white doesn't matter what color they are masking)

but the dogs don't produce sable just because they are white.  my point was, you do not know what a white is till you breed it.  unless there's a genetic test that can tell you what color the dog is.  it can be any color . but all you see is the white coat.  but it will produce as the masked color when bred to a dark dog.

white is just a masking color.

why would this not be correct?a white bred to a black can and does produce blk/tan and solid black offspring IF both dogs are recessive for black.

No, if both dogs were recessive blacks at the A locus, only black would be possible, and of course white if the non white dog carried recessive e.

if both dogs were masked solid blacks, then yes only black would be possible.

  but if they are white,  recessive for black, then blk/tan or bi color is also possible. as long as the other partner was dark.

I have seen to many litters from other breeders out of a white parents who carried for black recessive bred to a dark colored dog and they would produce blacks, bi's and dark blk/tans in their litters and white if the dark dog carried for it.  the dark dog carried for black too.

Ah right, now your saying "carried for" in place of "recessive for."  That makes more sense, it has a different meaning.  But don't forget that the white parent must 'carry' both tanpoint and recessive black for these patterns to both appear in the litter. 

sorry about that, I assume carried for, and recessive as the same thing. such as a dog is recessive for black, or a dog carries for black.

I suppose it could be assumed to mean the same in some circumstances, but when you said -

"IF both dogs are recessive for black."

This is saying that both dogs are aa, which is recessive black.  That would be an impossibility for the scenario you gave. You then said -

"if the dark dog carried for it.  the dark dog carried for black too"

 This is more correct as you could be saying that the dark dog just carried black, which could mean that you are aware of another allele on the A locus, which of course has to be a^t in this instance.