Positioning Traits on Saga's Charts

[Rheaven Resident]

Hi There Everyone,

I have been reading through some of the postings about where a trait is (proven) to be either dominant or recessive to another.

Many breeders think that just because a box shows one trait that it must be automatically hiding the other parents shown, and they (the breeders) then start telling everyone that's how it is. Then they get upset if another breeder says to them, that the first breeder's ideas could possibly not be right.

The hiddens in boxes can dictate a lot of things, for example:

Father is showing Tapestry Organica & hiding Odyssey Bellini
Mother is showing Fancie Purple Diamond & hiding Exotic Breeze
They have a box showing Odyssey Bellini

Now we all know that from Dominant to Recessive:
Fancie Purple Diamond
Tapestry Organica
Odyssey Bellini
Exotic Breeze

When some see that box they automatically think that Fancie Purple Diamond must be recessive to Odyssey Bellini cause that's what it looks like, but we know its not. The reason that the Odyssey Bellini is showing is that the hiddens go to war in the data base (that's how I like to say it....lol) and because the Exotic Breeze is the most recessive of the two hiddens it will hide under the Odyssey Bellini.

So you can see with this example that the hiddens dictated what would be showing, (well the database is doing the dictating) but either way it can steer breeders in the wrong direction.

Why I like the Saga charts so much is that they demand (to themselves) that they need at a minimum 2 or more exact proofs of where a trait is to end up on the charts. Some say this is a ridiculous way of doing it but it's the most sensible way of doing it. The Saga way absolutely proves the position of the traits as they are meticulous with the proofs behind each trait.

Wendi has started a series in the Saga newsletter ( [url=http://sagakitty.blogspot.ca/[/url] ) which shows how the Saga team determine a trait's position and I would suggest that all should read it so you have a clearer perception of why the traits are where they are on the charts.

I hope that this has cleared up a few things for those wishing to learn how traits are handled.

Rheaven

[Rheaven Resident]

I offer a big hug (Brotherly hug for you Barry & Songdog) and thank you to those who have given thanks for my post, it is very much appreciated

[Kayla Woodrunner]

The other thing that shows a definite proven is if you have a cat and you prove the hidden on the cat than that hidden trait on the cat is definitely recessive to the shown trait -- no other proof is needed.

For example: using the example above

Fancie Purple is bred against Grotto showing
Ody Bell shows
Ody Bell is dom to Grotto so has to be Fancie Purple's hid
Therefore, Ody Bell is definitely recessive to Fancie Purple, no other proof is necessary

I like to use this shown and proven hidden charts to show proof -- to me, they are the best charts

A lot of people don't bother to check their hidden traits and assume their cat has a double same trait calling it pure -- unless it is checked with the current cat or with the previous ancestor, the hidden is not proven. The problem is that you can prove a different hidden; it is difficult to prove a same hidden because you are proving a negative. Without checking assuming a cat is "pure" just because the same trait has shown for generations when bred only against same trait means only that it has not been tested -- hids can pass for generatins. I have often found hids in so-called "pure" cats -- at least minimum on 2 traits of the cat so it always important to check for hiddens.