I Got a Turquoise Tiger - Dom to TCaramel

[Etierre Bonde]

Dominant to Toyger Caramel, which is new info, although was discovered by another first. First new trait I have pulled, literally, in years! Wooot!

---

---

[MitsuruKirijo06 Resident]

(07-20-2018 06:13 PM)Etierre Bonde Wrote:  Dominant to Toyger Caramel, which is new info, although was discovered by another first. First new trait I have pulled, literally, in years! Wooot!

---

---

This pedigree doesn't really prove anything and should be in the other thread. I know a lot of caramels are solid but all we can see is a 15 day old caramel that could hide 3 furs.

[Arwen Swordthain]

Congratulations on your Tiger! Etierre, its a beautiful fur. Is there any chance we can see further back up the pedigree for the Caramel though, seeing the line predates the more recessive furs would be enough but if that too many charts don't worry about it, I'm sure proofs will start popping out from under the furs soon enough that I can use to update the dominance charts.
Congrats again on getting such a pretty fur

[Etierre Bonde]

I am very satisfied the mom is pure Caramel; I have carefully bred this line for over a year. Since there are only 2 certain and 1 possible rec furs to Caramel (Sega Charts), then the chance she is not pure is really remote, because... Out of those 3 rec furs, I have only bred Lilac (but not in this line!) and have never even owned the other two, nor were they in cats that were purchased (I carefully research pedis before buying plus the state of the market and the way I buy makes it very unlikely), which is why I made the claim. Yes, printing out all those pedis would be crazy, but I would not have made the claim I did if I was not convinced the line was pure; I just don't do that. But no one else knows why they should take my word for it! So I understand.

(07-21-2018 05:23 AM)Arwen Swordthain Wrote:  Congratulations on your Tiger! Etierre, its a beautiful fur. Is there any chance we can see further back up the pedigree for the Caramel though, seeing the line predates the more recessive furs would be enough but if that too many charts don't worry about it, I'm sure proofs will start popping out from under the furs soon enough that I can use to update the dominance charts.
Congrats again on getting such a pretty fur

---

Is that better? Trying to save space and I knew it. Sorry, I should have also explained, but oh well, didn't realize it was a proof as I never said so and figured at least we know it is dom to the bottom 4, which seems a lot closer than the bottom 20 or w/e. See my reply to Arwen. I'm not going to print and post a year's worth of pedis here... But, I think the fact that there are only 3 more rec furs (1 still in doubt) and that I have never owned 2 of them, and the other (Lilac) is NOT in this line, and that I have bred this line for over a year, carefully, makes it very remote that this fur is rec to Caramel.

Quote:This pedigree doesn't really prove anything and should be in the other thread. I know a lot of caramels are solid but all we can see is a 15 day old caramel that could hide 3 furs.

[Ivy Norsk]

I'll just get this one thing out of the way: the Saga Charts haven't been updated since December and no one is updating them and they are not accurate anymore. (I worked on the Saga team as a pedigree vetter.) The current community chart of reference is the forum-based one here The KittyCats Proofs charts which I tend to abbreviate to "KittyProofs". Those charts are based on the proofs which are provided here publicly in the Breeding section of the forum.

Certainly not everything that is posted here in the breeding section is a proof. There's lots of "look what I got" and "congrats" and "oh I think it's this" and "I'm testing this with this next" and occasionally there's a thread on how to breed. But the functional bones of this section is the proofs.

One of the things about proofs is none of the requirements are personal; they are strictly objective. It's not about anybody's word. It's about providing a reference that everybody can see right there and stands on it's own self-evident merits. You say you're satisfied that the mom is pure caramel. Okay, that is what it is - I completely believe you when you say that you didn't have the other recessive furs etc. As a point of comparison, I am personally satisfied that bubblegum is dominant to tonk blue mink, because I pulled it with a cat derived from a line that I believe to be pure. But I haven't posted that because I *Don't Have a Proof*. I'm working on a proof and - cats cooperating - I'll have one next week. I personally suspect that the tiger furs are going to end up dominant in the charts, and so yes, the turquoise is likely to be dominant to caramel toyger. This has to do with hunches, and buzz in the chat groups about who pulled the furs with what. But basically it's early days for the tigers yet and people don't have formal proofs mustered.

In your posts you both say you aren't giving a proof but then also say that yes the line is pure. And, like I said, people post things in Breeding that are "suggestive", not all proofs. My concern here is that the larger community is watching and it's really crucial to understanding pedigrees and the mechanisms of breeding that everybody account for the hiddens in cats and that a "Solid" pedigree showing caramels is not EVER a proof of pure caramel unless the dates on the cats go back to the point at which caramel was the most recessive fur on the grid - at which point they Must have been pure, because a "most-recessive" is always pure as there is no trait that can hide underneath it. Now yes, indeed that's really WAY too onerous for people to post... much too much effort generally speaking. Which is why we usually don't take that approach, we just take the time and pull the hidden with a more recessive fur.

In this case of turquoise tiger!, I do suspect we're going to see proofs come in with more dominant furs pulling.

Thank you for posting. We need more people interested in doing dominance testing and taking the time to post. It really is helpful for everybody who breeds.

[Etierre Bonde]

Thanks for Saga info. I was kind of wondering about that!

Thanks for the thoughts. And I agree. I hope at least one of the Tigers is very rec, but if there is one, it is probably not the one I pulled lol. Pretty sure about that, too!

(07-23-2018 10:27 PM)Ivy Norsk Wrote:  I'll just get this one thing out of the way: the Saga Charts haven't been updated since December and no one is updating them and they are not accurate anymore. (I worked on the Saga team as a pedigree vetter.) The current community chart of reference is the forum-based one here The KittyCats Proofs charts which I tend to abbreviate to "KittyProofs". Those charts are based on the proofs which are provided here publicly in the Breeding section of the forum.

Certainly not everything that is posted here in the breeding section is a proof. There's lots of "look what I got" and "congrats" and "oh I think it's this" and "I'm testing this with this next" and occasionally there's a thread on how to breed. But the functional bones of this section is the proofs.

One of the things about proofs is none of the requirements are personal; they are strictly objective. It's not about anybody's word. It's about providing a reference that everybody can see right there and stands on it's own self-evident merits. You say you're satisfied that the mom is pure caramel. Okay, that is what it is - I completely believe you when you say that you didn't have the other recessive furs etc. As a point of comparison, I am personally satisfied that bubblegum is dominant to tonk blue mink, because I pulled it with a cat derived from a line that I believe to be pure. But I haven't posted that because I *Don't Have a Proof*. I'm working on a proof and - cats cooperating - I'll have one next week. I personally suspect that the tiger furs are going to end up dominant in the charts, and so yes, the turquoise is likely to be dominant to caramel toyger. This has to do with hunches, and buzz in the chat groups about who pulled the furs with what. But basically it's early days for the tigers yet and people don't have formal proofs mustered.

In your posts you both say you aren't giving a proof but then also say that yes the line is pure. And, like I said, people post things in Breeding that are "suggestive", not all proofs. My concern here is that the larger community is watching and it's really crucial to understanding pedigrees and the mechanisms of breeding that everybody account for the hiddens in cats and that a "Solid" pedigree showing caramels is not EVER a proof of pure caramel unless the dates on the cats go back to the point at which caramel was the most recessive fur on the grid - at which point they Must have been pure, because a "most-recessive" is always pure as there is no trait that can hide underneath it. Now yes, indeed that's really WAY too onerous for people to post... much too much effort generally speaking. Which is why we usually don't take that approach, we just take the time and pull the hidden with a more recessive fur.

In this case of turquoise tiger!, I do suspect we're going to see proofs come in with more dominant furs pulling.

Thank you for posting. We need more people interested in doing dominance testing and taking the time to post. It really is helpful for everybody who breeds.

[Arwen Swordthain]

We do now have a proof on the other thread that the Turquoise is domnant to Tonkinese - Blue Mink, which means of course that it is indeed dominant to Toyger - Caramel as suspected.
So far none of the Tiger! furs is looking like its going to be very recessive, the only one with no bottom end is the Lavender which we know is rec to Bengal - Black, this may turn out to be the most recessive but equally the BubbleGum and Turquoise could still end up as the most recessive of the 4. Another Lavender was pulled by a Bengal - Blue that possibly has Toyger - Caramel hiding so I'd say chances at a bottom 5 recessive fur are pretty slim

[Etierre Bonde]

Thanks for the info, good to know! I can soon test Turquoise on a Toyger Silver, which is only right above Tonky Blue Mink, but hey, we'll need to know by the end. I don't have anything more dom but will see if can birth something which will be helpful, since few of us have this fur so far.

(07-26-2018 08:17 AM)Arwen Swordthain Wrote:  We do now have a proof on the other thread that the Turquoise is domnant to Tonkinese - Blue Mink, which means of course that it is indeed dominant to Toyger - Caramel as suspected.
So far none of the Tiger! furs is looking like its going to be very recessive, the only one with no bottom end is the Lavender which we know is rec to Bengal - Black, this may turn out to be the most recessive but equally the BubbleGum and Turquoise could still end up as the most recessive of the 4. Another Lavender was pulled by a Bengal - Blue that possibly has Toyger - Caramel hiding so I'd say chances at a bottom 5 recessive fur are pretty slim