Jessica Stites wrote ...
I wanted to bring up a topic that became VERY heated on Click me regarding coat color genetics. This thread is going to only have about a quarter of the posts from the thread....SO PLEASE if you want more go and read it!!! This is some great information to the open minded Neo' people from a geneticist.

Alrighty, here goes....

The genotype you guys are discussing so vehemently, is comprised of a pigmentation gene B/b IN COMBINATION WITH a dilution gene D/d. The dilution gene d in essence influences, whether black becomes blue in phenotype. So far so good.

So by Mendelian inheritance dd x dd should "never" throw black (at least in theory), as the genotype for a blue Neo would be recessive on both alleles, maternal and paternal. (BTW, the parents themselves...as well as the grandparents too COULD BE black in phenotype [BBDd] and just silently propagating d to the next generation.) The dilution gene itself has been successfully identified as MLPH (melanophilin gene), and it is proposed that in many dog breeds this gene appears to be the only allele that causes blue (or gray).

HOWEVER.....! There are many breeds, where it is hypothesized (or even documented) that other dilution genes do exist or might exist IN ADDITION TO MLPH. Furthermore, MLPH itself exists in dozens(!) of actual sequence variations, meaning that the dilution gene comes in MANY different genetic forms. So D or d might actually be an overly naive abstraction of what is truly going on genetically. I will not even go into the rare possibilities of mutation or (more frequently) crossing over scenarios. All of these effects would prohibit anyone serious to ever say "NEVER" in Genetics.

I hope that helps.

gsicard wrote:
JaxBirchmuck wrote:
Gary; I use to have a shred of respect for you until this stupid post you made.
blue+blue cannot produce black. I was not aware that it was a genetic FACT period. I stand chastened and corrected.

JaxBirchmuck, not that stupid afterall, huh?!
As I always say, Mendelian genetics was really hot science in 1865.....but it's 2008 now!

Dan

yajnesh wrote:
Dan rare mutations and hypotheses aside, what would you tell a Neo breeder who asks you what colour pups will I get if I bred a blue male to a blue bitch?
Yaj,


Yaj,

First of all, the evident polymorphism of the dilution gene at question is not hypothesis but genetic fact, reducing this fact to just two letters (D and d) IS simplification.

"Can two Blue Neo's EVER have a black pup? I was told this weekend that it is totally impossible..."

The question as I understood it was NOT what a breeder should expect most likely to occur, but what could or could not potentially happen - EVER. Mendel gave us a good tool to work with, but it is far from genetic reality. I have seen too many "impossible" phenotypes in my career, so I am very careful to automatically condemn an extreme and unforeseen outcome as fraud.

Dan

babigirl wrote:
Click me
...I have a hard time with thinking that the dozen that I have seen posted ARE all lies...Since REALLY what would be the point? Not saying that it is normal or should be expected in a blue breeding, but can it happen.....?.....


Of course this puppy could theoretically be from a different (i.e. black) sire (unintentionally perhaps), but the simple fact that it is JUST 1 out of 15 puppies could make it somewhat plausible that some rare effect might have taken place instead. If there were say 3 or 4 black puppies (AND a black sire present at the kennel!!), I would certainly favor the alternate sire theory, as Mendelian inheritance generally holds true. As I mentioned before, heritability activities of more than one dilution gene have been observed in several dog breeds, we are still far from knowing exactly what's going on. New genetic mechanisms (beyond simple recombination) have been discovered in recent years (i.e. Gene Silencing) and who know's what is still out there that we have no clue about. I would be cautious to dismiss an honest breeder with an unusual occurance in his/her litter as ignorant or even fraudulent. As babigirl said, "what would be the point?"

Yaj, Mendelian genetics as a general rule of thumb is fine. Breeders should expect a phentotypic distribution as predicted by classical genetics. And THAT is about as far as it goes. Nature is much more complicated than dominant/recessive inheritance. Genetics seems to provide a rich abundance of mechanisms, how to overwrite its own "rule" of stagnant propagation of alleles. And WE shouldn't really be surprised, if we are once again suprised by nature.

Dan
Quote:
Artibus;

"JUST 1 out of 15 puppies could make it somewhat plausible that some rare effect might have taken place instead". A dozen times, what is the % of that type of mutation on a breed that is #115 on the AKC registration list? Where any data to support that type of rate?

JaxBirchmuck,
if you had actually paid a little attention to what I wrote, you would have noticed that I wasn't at all talking about mutation. I was mainly referring to the possibility of other dilution genes.....like the one you mentioned for example (I further mentioned the known sequence variations of dilution genes). Apparently you aren't even sure yourself, which one actually modulates the pigmentation, or else you wouldn't have responded "Can we really say that the Blue coat color is the eumelanin dilute to the Black coat color gene (from the MLPH gene) in the Neapolitan breed? The results of the four coat colors tend to make me believe this is more likely an eumelanin co-dominant dilution, TYRP2."
How vague is THAT?!
So, if YOU DON'T REALLY KNOW the exact underlying mechanism of inheritance, how can you then be so sure that certain traits are "impossible"?! I don't get it.

Quote:
Now let’s take your statements Artibus and think of it in the context of people pushing their lies and false pedigrees and maybe they don’t use your words directly, but they can and will be used to fraud people!

With all due respect, but this attitude of yours reminds me a tiny bit of the Roman inquisition that had forced Galileo to repent and reject the Copernican position, because "it was dangerous and would have a devastating effect on the morale of the people and ultimately the church itself". Sounds familiar?

Just kidding .... and you're probably right, some people will perhaps misconstrue this information and use it for their personal agenda, but let's get real here for a moment. If you HONESTLY are concerned about the well-being of your breed, then you should stop worrying about a dozen puppies (over one decade!) that might or might not have been slipped in with another litter (potentially yielding false pedigrees), and focus instead on more important issues....like...uhm......maybe the general health of the Neo for example. Now THAT would be an endeavor worthwhile pursuing.

Regards,
Dan
Quote:
As I stated earlier the % possibility that this breeding resulted, blue bred to a blue, in a black pup naturally given all the genetic studies (on mice and other breeds, not the neapolitan) and previous pedigree data is non-existant. I suspect something is in the woodpile; EM, BM, GD, SB or a few other possible breeds, known or unknown.


JaxBirchmuck,

this is where your argumentation becomes non-sensical, and I'll tell you why. Not only do you contradict yourself in those two sentences "given all the genetic studies (on [..] other breeds[..] is non-existant" and then later "I suspect [..] EM, BM, GD, SB or a few other possible breeds", but it shows that you have to brush up a bit on your understanding of Mendelian genetics itself. See, if both parents are blue and therefore homozygous for the recessive allele (as you postulate), then it shouldn't really matter what their ancestry was. Genes don't have labels on them that they originated from a Great Dane or St Bernard. As far as Classical genetics is concerned, you might as well have crossed in a chihuahua, the mode of propagation of genes would remain the same. Lastly, your suspicion that some other breed is "in the woodpile" basically implies that you indirectly admit that two blue "Neos" CAN produce a black pup (for whatever reason, maybe because the evil breeder mixed in a EM or BM). So that would require some alternate scheme of inheritance, don't you think?! But THIS is exactly what you have previously so vehemently denied! Oh well, logic is a wonderful thing.

Quote:
Artibus;
Quote:
"So, if YOU DON'T REALLY KNOW the exact underlying mechanism of inheritance, how can you then be so sure that certain traits are "impossible"?!
It's called data, the building block of studies, but I would have thought being such an expert you would understand that?????

Since you bring up data driven research studies....when litters from blue parents are reported with one black puppy, then that should be ALSO part of your data! Dismissing it right away as charlatanry and taking it out of your data set without consideration is called scientific bias. In science, it is actually the exception to the rule that triggers the re-evaluation of a given scientific model. Fields like quantum physics, astronomy....and yes, molecular genetics too, thrive on unusual observations - those little pieces of data that take exception to the normal or expected behavior. By ignoring certain data, you are simply clinging to the status quo. And conventionalism never caused any discoveries.

Quote:

Artibus said,
[..]
Wow, you joust with me about studies based on mice and dobermans (a little boxer, pincher and beagle mixed in) yet show your lack of research in my breeding program? Tisk, Tisk.
ImageDobermans?? Beagles?? WHAT?!

But yeah, I have to admit that I wasn't aware that the research in YOUR breeding program is a "must read" for every college student in life sciences.

Quote:
Back up your statements with data on the breed.

Look, if a litter is reported with a black pup resulting from two blue Neos, then that piece of information should be approached without any prejudice. Correct parenthood could be investigated genetically - this is not very expensive. So where's your problem exactly?

Quote:
Let's see that before you spew insults and question my breeding program tough guy.
I specifically mentioned the GENERAL health issues of your breed. I did NOT comment on YOUR kennel or YOUR breeding efforts. Now, if you don't see the GENERAL health issues of your breed as a bigger problem than a hand full of black puppies with questionable (or interesting) lineage, then I can't help you there.

Dan

_________________
Astibus
Two points.

So what I gather from the post by owners is that it is impossible and if the impossible happens then there is some "outside" influence or the breeder is "cheating".

What I gather from someone schooled in genetics is that it is NOT impossible and it is best to test the parents and pup to determine parentage and not discount this data point.

Did I mention paradigmn somwhere in my previous post. I suspect that breeders have held this belief for so long and had it repeated by very respected mastinari and written in books so that even when presented with evidence it is dismissed as falsehood.

When and if my two blues produce a black I will have the DNA test completed and post the results right here.

What I will take away from this discussion is that it is not impossible but is highly improbable and leave it up to nature to correct its mistake by blessing any mating of two greys with a black.

_________________
Gary Sicard
Click me

Image

OK dont want to upset the apple cart but these pups came out of two blue parents

Grand parents were all blue but one dam was black

I own one of these pups and Anita from Dalnarck can confirm she bred the Sire

And no there was no black male at the property when the mating occured

I know this is also the only litter on the ground with the breeder at the time so none added in from other litters

GG parents were Black and grey

I bred my Tawny from this litter to a blue and got all blue
Lynnicks

wrote by babigirl lol and or Jessica
Click me

I think using absolutes in life as a general rule is never good to do...Since there is Always exceptions To Every rule. This is one out of many that I have heard of in the last decade...I have a hard time with thinking that the dozen that I have seen posted ARE all lies...Since REALLY what would be the point? Not saying that it is normal or should be expected in a blue breeding, but can it happen.....?.....


Ottomus1 wrote:
Quote:
1 trillion, eh?! OK, no comment....other than that in the 80's geneticists had NO knowledge yet about the exact mode of inheritance, nor had they identified the actual genes in question.

Why would a geneticist make a statement in court concerning case if that didn't know was involved with the color inheritance?
OK, since you asked...

What probably ACTUALLY has happened is that the court did NOT try to determine the probability of two blue Neos producing a black puppy, BUT the CORRECT PARENTAGE!! The geneticist performing the DNA tests (I would hope using RFLP (restriction fragment length polymorphism) testing and not the HLA (histocompatibility leukocyte antigen) testing which was still used around that time as well) then declared in court that THESE two alleged parents were HIGHLY UNLIKELY to be the puppies' parents. The probability of THAT would be about 1 in several million-STILL not a trillion . That would give the court reason enough to order the breeder to return the money, as it would be sufficiently proven that he did NOT sell puppies from these two parents. Whether two blues CAN produce a black one is a whole different story.

BTW, 1 in a trillion would be waaaay beyond the natural mutation rate. 1 in 1000 billion (=1trillion) would in fact be soo rare, that statistically this would not even occur once in all 6 billion people on this earth. Yet, we even see new mutations in humans on a daily basis.

Again, Classical Genetics generally holds true. However, on a molecular level there are many established and newly identified effects at work that can produce an unexpected outcome. Whether we like it or not.

Dan

"We were attempting to prove that atoms do not exist. Since atoms don't exist, their detecting devices, namely electron microscopes, consequently must be a product of charlatanry. We started a poll and asked, if ANYONE has EVER seen an atom in person. 14 people said "NEVER" and only one said he did, but he also admitted that he used an electron microscope for this, which by definition is fraudulent. We therefore conclude that atoms cannot exist!"

Alrighty then.

Phil2511 wrote:
... the probability is low due to the fact that it has never been seen so far.

Em.....we already have two photos of litters in this thread alone! Therefore it HAS been seen ..... No?!

Phil2511 wrote:
therefore it is just a hope that the breeder did not lie [..] it is only an assumption that they were honest about things.

Fair enough...but the same should apply to the breeders that participated in that poll. I mean, who is to say that some of them didn't just lie about it because they feared ridicule from their peers? Since you indirectly suggest that breeders of black pups (from blue x blue) are charlatans or cross-breeders, what keeps me then from speculating that the "clean" breeders might just destroy black puppies to avoid being branded as cross-breeders of unpure dogs?! Let's therefore just avoid the speculation altogether and presume that breeders on both "sides" are telling the truth as they see it, shall we?

People here have initially suggested that coat color is based on simple Mendelian inheritance of a pigmentation gene B/b. Since we all agree that tawny pups CAN come out of blue parents, if both contain the recessive gene b, we have enough evidence right here and can safely state that a simple inheritance of one gene is not sufficient to explain all phenotypes. At least one dilution gene D/d is needed to modulate the pigmentation in order to explain the expected distribution of black, blue and tawny (if for example blue was bred to black). Therefore we MUST at least consider a blue x blue mating as BBdd x BBdd. {I am ignoring heterozygosity for B from now on, as it doesn't really add much to the argument} OK, so far so good.

Now, if a few breeders happen to report a litter that resulted in black out of two blues, then THIS CAN NOT BE EXPLAINED WITH BBdd x BBdd ALONE! No matter how you turn it. If correct parentage can be confirmed genetically, then a single occurance of this would strongly suggest another mode of inheritance at work. As simple as that.

Then it has been suggested that "something must be in the woodpile". Now let's just stop here and think about this for a moment. If both parents have alleles BBdd to be phenotypically blue, then IT DOESNT matter what their ancestors were.....EM, GD, SB or Chihuahua! They are still both BBdd in order to be blue. So they can only propagate (Bd) to the next generation to get all BBdd again. See where the logical problem lies?? Again, if we postulate that BBdd is all that is necessary in the genotype of our Neo dam and sire to determine color, then "something in the woodpile" would make no difference. "Grandpa" can be whatever he wants to be ... at least genetically speaking.

So, if on very rare occasion this match DOES throw something other than blue, then it indicates that there is more to the story than just one pigmentation gene and one dilution gene. I have actually consulted another geneticist on this, who is even more specialized in this particular field within genetics, to find out what other effects COULD cause these rare effects. Just as I suspected, on a molecular level there are MANY mechanisms that can throw off the Mendelian distribution that we are so conveniently accustomed to. Complete or incomplete gene repetitions within the same genome, alternative splicing mechanisms, co-dominant regulation genes etc can drastically change an expected outcome.

I mean, just take a step back for a moment from Neos altogether and think about it in general. If dominant/recessive inheritance was ALL that nature had at its disposal, then we'd all still be single cell organisms, because nothing really new could EVER come out of the same limited amount of genes simply recombining. This principle of genomic complexity holds true for all mammals.....and yes, for Neos too (sorry, no exception).

Generally speaking, we still don't know everything that is going on in a cell on a molecular level. There are a plethora of genetics scientists, who discover every day that there are still a myriad of unknown regulation mechanisms out there that we never knew about. While nature frequently leaves many high-caliber scientists puzzled and constantly teaches them yet another lesson in humility, dog breeders seem to know it all just because they read it in a book that they bought for $9.95. Go figure.

Katwoman wrote: (jaxbirchmuck)
So, what is the likelyhood of it happening, a black puppy out of two blue puppies in the Neapolitan breed? You can use either; in percentage per population or percentage chance. Since the entire belief of it being possible is coming from Astibus, Dan please answer.


If you carefully read through what I wrote already, you will see that your question was wrong to begin with. If the variables aren't all known, an absolute answer simply cannot be given. But if you insisted on a simple answer anyway, I'd say I'd go with 42, as this would be the result that coincides with the Ultimate Answer to the Great Question of Life, the Universe, and Everything, which according to The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy took a super computer named Deep Thought exactly 7.5 million years to compute. So yeah.....the answer is 42. lol

I hope this helps a bit.

"As for me, all I know is that I know nothing." Sokrates

Dan

_________________
Astibus
"The Šarplaninec shows us how to stand tall when confronted by wolves!"
Katwoman, (jaxbirchmuck)

you're funny. You continue to argue within your limited paradigm. This is as if a creationist argued against evolution by quoting from the bible. I mean, ... duh!

What I am trying to tell you and everyone else is that Mendelian Genetics is certainly a great tool to understand the propagation of genes in general, BUT it simply does not describe the whole story! It is just an abstract MODEL to understand reality and NOT comprehensive by any means! Things change on a molecular level.

I will give you an analogy that I hope will help. Just think about the physical world that is surrounding you. While classical mechanics seems to describe the world as we see it fairly well, it is FAR from reality. How come? Well, on an atomic level electrons for example defy Newtonian mechanics radically, as they remain on an orbital path around the atoms core instead of colliding with the positively charged nucleus. Newtonian mechanics makes it IMPOSSIBLE for atoms to stay stable! THAT is why physicists came up with Quantum mechanics, because at an atomic level classical electromagnetism proves to be "useless". However, we continue to use Classical mechanics for practical purposes, although we know that on an atomic level it just isn't so.

Do you see where I am going with this? A similar dualism exists in genetics. Here a quick proof why Mendelian Genetics simply doesn't cover every aspect of inheritance. Prader-Willi is a rare genetic disorder that is caused by deletion of genes on chromosome 15. Angelman syndrome is a neuro-genetic disorder that is caused by the exact same deletion of genes on chromosome 15. Two disorders with very different phenotype caused by the exact same genes. Only difference....it depends on whether they were inherited from the paternal side or from the maternal side! Mendelian inheritance doesn't account for that! It ignores whether genes are inherited from the father or mother. On a molecular level things get much more complicated than in our happy Mendel world. What YOU innocently call "d" in your essay about genetics coat color turns out to be a large set of highly variable sequences on a DNA level. Where does your table account for that? Things get messy real fast on a molecular level!


Katwoman wrote: (jaxbirchmuck)
The information came from Dr. Greg Barsh, Dr. Sheila Schmutz and Dr. Tosso Leeb the leading canine genetists.


"Classic breeding experiments told us much about the inheritance of coat colors and patterns in the early to mid 1900's. Only in the last 5 years, have the underlying genes been discovered. Many are yet unknown. Several genes interact with each other to alter the shades of the basic colors." Sheila Schmutz

Ouch!

But hey, ultimately all I can say to you is "Dream on."

Dan

_________________
Astibus

Phil2511 wrote:
Dan i do not count the 2 photos posted as they are not proof in my opinion.

I agree. At this point the photos would merely be unexpected "data" for further consideration. IF however correct paternity could be established by genetic testing, it would become all the proof one needs. See, my point is to avoid making a judgement prematurely in either direction. I am not excluding any possibility (including false parenthood of course), until more evidence is provided.

Earlier in this thread, someone mentioned an intentional breeding of two red Shars (being homozygous for the recessive dilution gene d), surprisingly leading to all sable gray puppies. While I personally do not favor the idea of intentionally breeding two reds together, nobody saw me pouting or dismissing the dogs as cross-breds or the breeder(s) as charlatans. I simply took the information and hypothesized that maybe two different dilution genes were at work here (to explain the result). Why can't Neo folks simply look at 'inconvenient' information objectively as well? Why so emotional? Why does every diversion from the "official opinion" in the Neo community have to be treated as high treason? That is what I don't get.


Phil2511 wrote:
[...]Does that make sense, and seem reasonable.
Yes, of course it does.

Dan

_________________
Astibus
Astibus wrote:
Katwoman,

you're funny. You continue to argue within your limited paradigm.

Dan, several posts by Babigirl and Katwoman were edited to "---" so they have been deleted. Anyone reading this please know that the argument continued and got a bit out of hand so Babigirl and Katwoman did the right thing and edited their posts.

I find this discussion fascinating and was told about some litters in Italy where two blues produced black.

Also - To keep this forum clean, please do not post any accussations about breeders hanging papers on dogs or introducing something else in their breeding to produce "black". If you have no proof and as many claim "were not there to see it" then stop talking badly about it in reference to any breeder.

Dan - thanks again for sharing your knowledge and experience with us and taking your time to try to open the minds of others. Intelectual curiosity is the window to understanding.

_________________
Gary Sicard
Click me
Katwoman wrote:
This would make a good argument, except the genes in question have been mapped and a test exist to determine the coat color in a score of breeds. By the same Geneticists you laughed at.


Just to clarify something here. I didn't laugh at any of the experts you cited. All I did is quote one of your favored scientists' own words....

Astibus wrote:
Katwoman wrote:
The information came from Dr. Greg Barsh, Dr. Sheila Schmutz and Dr. Tosso Leeb the leading canine genetists.


"Classic breeding experiments told us much about the inheritance of coat colors and patterns in the early to mid 1900's. Only in the last 5 years, have the underlying genes been discovered. Many are yet unknown. Several genes interact with each other to alter the shades of the basic colors." Sheila Schmutz

Ouch!


... only to point out that "MANY (genes) are yet unknown!". In this statement she basically agrees that the whole story is still unknown, while you seem to insist that the book in your bookshelf on canine genetics has figured it all out already. What you perhaps don't realize is that all of these color encoding genes have been indirectly derived from breeding experiments based on deduction. The mapping only happened very recently....and is STILL far from complete. Here a current excerpt from the "Canine Genome Project" at NHGRI...."The Canine Genome Project is currently focused on mapping genetic markers and understanding the patterns of genetic information that exists between breeds, within breeds and in disease states. [..]There may be anywhere from 20,000 and 200,000 canine genes, and so far only a few hundred have been identified. Genes are difficult to locate..." (a little obsolete if you ask me, but still ok for the sake of argument)
All smoke and mirrors, huh?!

Katwoman wrote:
Someone stated a dozen sightings of these 'occurrences' in a decade? A dozen exact rare overwrite of Nature's own rule.
No!...Just a dozen sightings! Whether they turn out to be a fluke in nature or just from another sire would need to be determined case by case. You should seriously re-read what I already wrote.

Katwoman wrote:
You have proclaimed yourself all knowing

Ehm.....WHAT?! Image
So when I write... "As for me, all I know is that I know nothing." Sokrates, it tells you somehow that I proclaim that I know all??? Admit it, are you even processing anything of what I write?

Katwoman wrote:
Maybe the people who have been scammed or are thinking of making a purchase (any breed) will do a little more research, maybe even demand to see the testing of color from the stock they are potentially going to purchase a pup from
You know what I don't get in your twisted world? If you buy a black pup out of two blue Neos, you've been clearly scammed, but if you buy a black Neo pup from black parents (and who's to say btw that this parentage is any more accurate than the other one?), which requires constant medical attention and frequent surgery throughout its life, only to drop dead at 4-5 years, then its all legit. Okaaay!

Charlotte wrote:
It's cute that you guys keep on arguing...

Maybe she likes me...
No seriously, I think I provided my point more than sufficiently by now. All I am really saying is that I would never use the terms "NEVER" or "IMPOSSIBLE" in genetics. Rare? Yes. Very rare? Most probably too. But "IMPOSSIBLE"? It's still way too early to tell.

Dan

P.S. "What is your background, because it is obvious it isn't canine genetics? (This isn't a slam)" According to previous MD discussions I have been "ridiculed" as being a simple shepherd from the mountains. I have to admit that I kinda like that idea.
Katwoman wrote:
Get these people to post!
I am sure they would want to clear their names from being called liars and cheats?
Why would they do that? So then can be called liars and cheats? Actually I really don't think they care what some people think about them.

So let me understand something - if someone who has been breeding for a very long time tells me that he/she knows of several litters in question they are liars and cheats because the info is second hand and I am just as bad for believing it? Did I get that right?

Now I understand a bit better why some talk trash about this website. We still believe in the discussion of breeds rather than blind acceptance of the status quo.

All the best Jax.

_________________
Gary Sicard
Click me
One last thing......

Image
Panda German Shepherd Dog

M. Neff, Ph.D. (Center for Veterinary Genetics, University of California Davis) wrote:

[..] we have analyzed the DNA of Panda dogs and their non-Panda littermates using modern genetic tools. We have found the following:
· The coat color pattern stems from a spontaneous mutation; it was not introduced from another breed or population.
· The novel mutation occurred in the Sire's germ line, and was then passed
down to his daughter, who was the only offspring of that sire to show the distinguishing markings.
· In subsequent generations, the Panda pattern has exhibited an autosomal dominant mode of inheritance, consistent with the action of a single gene acting with full penetrance.


Genetically "IMPOSSIBLE", ... right?!

Katwoman wrote:
please support your statements with examples of recessive genes mutating or crossing over and producing a dominant result in any canine coat color

Checkmate! Image

Katwoman wrote:
When did the Neapolitan get a coat pattern? [..] not part of the genetic make up of the Neo

Oh no, you DIDN'T!! Image
You didn't just go for the "It's-all-different-in-the- Neo"-defense, did you?!...
You REALLY should know when to call it a game, admit defeat and move on with dignity. The "checkmate" was only meant as a well-intended hint for you.

Look, you vehemently refused to believe that nature could spontaneously produce a dominant trait in a given coat color. I showed you an example (including DNA verification) of a spontaneous mutation that subsequently propagates in an autosomal dominant fashion. Scientifically speaking, all I really needed was ONE counter example to uproot your entire framework, to show that it IS possible in nature. I have sufficiently proven that a mating of two dogs CAN produce a dominant trait in the next generation, which wasn't in the parents to begin with..... AND that it couldn't have possibly been introduced from some other source.

It doesn't matter, if the particular gene at question altered coat pattern, or whether it occured in GSD. Everyone with a brain can grasp by now that this kind of spontaneous occurance can happen in any color encoding gene...and yes, for any breed! Believe it or not, that would include your precious Neos as well.

Katwoman wrote:
Grasping now a bit aren't you? haha
Mhm, ... that you don't have a clue how mutations work.

Now go ahead and cite more experts, quote from books that you purchased at Barnes&Noble and run more polls on other websites, but I have to tell you that with each additional post your position becomes more and more......well....pathetic. At least I know when a discussion is over. And it's over honey, sorry!

4myneo wrote:
Dogs are dogs, genetics is genetics where coat color is concerned.

Exactly. I see there is hope in the NM world.

RubberDucky wrote:
I am interested in what your reply is to the Panda Shepherd.

RubberDucky,
as suspected this wasn't addressed adequately... because it cannot be explained away that easily. The DNA evidence ruled out all of the standard objections such as alternate sire, cross-breeding, cheating etc. All that is left really is some kooky arguments or straight out denial ..... OR that nature once again had a surprise for us.

Dan

P.S.:
Quote:
All matter is mearly energy condensed through a slow vibration, we are all one conciousness experiencing itself subjectively. Life is only a dream and we are the imagination of ourselves. - Marly Sicard (13 years old)
It's astonishing how much smarter and open minded a small girl can be, than the vast majority of adults! Amazing insight!

I will add if anything more of worth is said!!!!
Take care to all!

Gary Sicard wrote ...
And so I will close this topic with a few thoughts.

based on the forgoing discussion I presume that those insearch of knowledge of the Neapolitan Mastiff will not find it on a breed specific Neo site. It would be unpopular to to discuss with such vehemence and clarity any characteristic of the breed. Many Neo owners believe that the breed is a supercanis which can suppress certain genes at will to control its outcome and if something that is not expected shows up - it will be marked as blasphemy and burned at the stake. Some also believe that it is too precious to be able to exercise, run, work or do anything but sit around and look slovenly... they do this breed an injustice.

I have also concluded that if anyone reading wants an open, honest and non biased answer regarding the Neo and any other breed then this humble site - molosserdogs.com is probably your best destination.

I will also caution anyone interested in obtaining a Neo puppy to do research outside the comfort zone of the neo communities - find a site that does not specialize in the breed and ask any questions and be open to the answers. From this topic I can clearly state that if I wanted a puppy I would definated not get one from a certain kennel. Any kennel owner who fail to think objectively and blindly follow silly old beliefs cannot do the breed any good.

At some time in the future the owners and breeders of the Neapolitan Mastiff must decide if they will open their eyes and see outside their kennel. Breeders like Alleri, Agrippina and lynnicks are on the right track and would be at the top of my list if I wanted a Neo.

On the matter of coat color. Two blues can and have produced black because it has happened. Nature does work wonders and it is a shame that such fantastic occurrences are dismissed as lies or dishonest.

Dan, I appreciate you expertise and thoughtful explanation on this topic. I hope that many who read it will at least start thinking about the wonders of nature and not discount that very important data point.

All thanks for your participation - This topic is now closed.

Phil wrote ...


Another point is that NO breeder of ANY breed can guarantee 100% how a pup will develop they can only hope that the mating they have made is a good match. And not use dogs that have problems. Or inbreed like a crazy person. Which is a downfall of MANY of the older kennels, basically due to breeders being so stubborn as to not want other breeders dogs in their pedigrees and, due to the majority of breeders not giving studs and allowing other dogs names to be written, they choose to inbreed much closer and for many generations more than they should.