Some Thoughts on Advertising Terminology

[Malicia Python]

Mind that most of the breeders around know their cats and make rightful claims about their cats‘ potentials. Those will be able to provide any proof to verify their cats. But there have been some cases of false advertising that may have burnt some of the newer breeders, either made out of ignorance or maybe even to mislead on purpose. I noted some of the most common „promises“ and tried to point out what truth they contain and how to verify the cat‘s potential. In case of doubt, it is best to contact the seller and ask, ask, ask.

pure:
Usage: Both parents had this trait, too
Implies: This kitten has both genes of the mentioned trait
Truth: If not bred to the most recessive end of the parents‘ potential, the seller cannot really grant the hidden trait being the shown, too. This statement can be especially doubtful if the seller does not own the grandparents. Recessive traits often skip several generations and only show with the right partner.

Actually, this term is quite outdated from the times,the trait hierarchy was not commonly known and ppl feared the more dominant trait would show again (mistaking when the more dominant trait of the other parent showed.) When the trait is the most recessive around at the time being it is rather redundant - or even wrong if some undiscovered trait may be in the hidden. Usually finding a more recessive trait is a nice thing, but if it is an undesired one to the person buying the cat, it can be annoying to them - esp. when this is about a new trait.

hides:
Usage: One of the parents has this trait, shown or hidden
Implies: This is the hidden trait of the cat in question
Truth: Usually analyzing the pedigree against the dominance chart proves this claim right or wrong. Though often you find that the claimed trait simply cannot be in the cat because it is the hidden trait of the parent that gave the trait shown in the baby. Thus, if it is the more recessive trait of the parents, the parent who had the advertised trait may have passed their hidden trait. If the claimed trait is nowhere to be seen in the pedigree, the claim can be rightfully made, though. An honest breeder will provide the proof.

in BG/ ancestor has:
Usage: there is some trait in the background, usually the grandparents
Implies: The baby may have this trait, too
Truth: This is honest but wishy-washy. If the mentioned trait is more dominant than the shown, it wont ever show again in the offsprings (if not brought by another mate). if it is a very recessive trait, it may be there or no. If all the offsprings of the claimed in BG trait show a more dominant trait there is a chance the more recessive trait was dragged along. Even a genesis trait might hide the mentioned trait. The only chance to really know is to breed out this cat with a suitable partner.

sibling has:
Usage: Obviously to state the siblings traits, one or both parents have passed this trait
Implies: This cat has the same trait hidden
Truth: Again, an analysis of the pedigree and the dominance charts can show if the promised trait can be there. When you have the more recessive as the desired trait in one of the parents, you have this or a more recessive in the baby, if both parents have the desired trait as a hidden, there still is a chance. Ask for the siblings pedigree and check carefully, again an honest seller will provide the proof.

Parents‘/Grandparents‘ names in the pedigree
Some people name the cats for their traits and rightfully do, but there is a chance these names can be made up, too. A name change whenever made shows in the pedigree. Mind any differences in the cat‘s info and the pedigree page.

[Kayleigh McMillan]

I have to agree with this!
For obvious reasons I kept my bengal snow line pure even before all the new more recessive furs were introduced just because they are so useful to try starters I wanted, even before they were retired, to keep at least one bengal line pure as a convenient breeders tool.
A happy surprise therefore was the retirement of the Bengal Snow because this gave my pure line even more value.
But this is basically the only fur I claim to be pure as I know for a fact it is.
And yes this is something I hope I have a good enough reputation in for people to trust this
It seems in the future important as well with the variety of Balineses.
In other cases such as with my ody sublime eyes, in which I created many generations which could be pure but we all know we never know this to be a fact, I advertice them as i.e 4-th generation sublime.
I see false adverticements in what you mentioned above as well but I like to believe, maybe I'm a softy here, people don't do this on purpose and if they do I think this is not even close to smart for their own future reputation.
It can have a problematic outcome though especially for the reputation of the breeder in question and ofcourse for the budget of the not well informed customer.
But learning about genes has a huge learning curve and as the amount of people who breed grows every day I think they deserve the time to learn more about it.
Yesterday I saw someone who claimed a cat did hide both a siamese flame and a snowshoe red such is obviously something the breeder will learn in time to be impossible.
I think the explanation you gave above is very valuable for new and some older breeders as this explains everything really, thank you!
Therefore I like to vote for this to be a sticky post and some other posts, Miss Callie *Gives the strickt look*

[Liriel Garnet]

I actually use a slightly different definition for hiding -- it has to be either shown directly from a parent or can be proven via dominance analysis of the shown trait. I'm also careful to list xxx+ if I'm not 100 percent sure whether the trait i mention is hiding or a more recessive might be hiding.

'in the background' is actually quite useful, assuming, as you said, that the claim isn't made for a trait that cannot possibly be hidden in the OS. Any hidden trait from a parent is 50% likely to be passed to a box. So if one parent hides a myst eye, the other is pure curious, then the box is 50% to hide myst eye. It's a toss up, but it's there. If *both* parents have a curious eye hiding myst and the curious shows, it's actually a 2/3 chance for the myst to be hiding, which is significant. Personally when labelling boxes like this, i will use a ? to denote a trait that is 2/3 likely to hide and ?? to denote a trait that is 50% to hide, but i do *not* count those as 'for sure' when assessing known potential of a cat.

I use siblings only to prove that a parent hides a particular trait. I have a cat for example, that I know is hiding sublime behind her shown Ody Dream, but you can't see that in the pedigree, because mom and her parents all show grass eyes. So I'll post a pedigree from one of the mom's OS to show that she indeed hides the sublime behind the grass.

[Brunabug Nightfire]

I am glad to see this topic. Just the other day I saw someone posting that there was a Toy Balinese Lilac Lynx kitten box up for auction. Come to find out after looking at the box information it was only a Toy Bengal Snow and it's father was a Balinese Lilac Lynx.

I just dont get how or why people make such a big deal about the hidden traits in the really recessive furs, eyes, tails, ears etc... I personally like to see traits and not worry so much about the hidden traits. We all know that there is always something more recessive behind anything that is not a genesis trait. And if you spend the time to pull that hidden trait it is worth far more than taking the credit for something that may be hidding or not.

[Tad Carlucci]

(05-29-2012 11:47 AM)Liriel Garnet Wrote:  If *both* parents have a curious eye hiding myst and the curious shows, it's actually a 2/3 chance for the myst to be hiding

To be accurate: the odds in this case are actually only 50%. One parent gives curious. The other gives either curious or mysterious. The fact that you don't know which parent passed the visible curious does not effect the odds for the hidden.

---

I can see how this mistake is made to arrive at 2-in-3 odds. But to actually get 2-in-3 odds, one parent would have to pass both the hidden and the visible allele; which is not possible.

---

Which leads to one of my pet peeves for claims .. odds which have either a numerator or a denominator which is not a power of 2. Such as the 2-in-3 odds claimed above.

---

Charm's pet peeves are people who rename the parents, get the box, then rename them to something else; whether the name given to produce the box is a claim, later changed, or whether the same name is given to all parents about to produce boxes and then changed after the box appears.

For example (I'm making this up): having several pairs of Balinese Seal Lynx. Naming all the mothers "Seal Lynx F" all the fathers "Seal Lynx M" which, if you can't see the Pedigree pages for them, seems as an attempt to hide *which* mother and *which* father produced *which* box.

[Kayleigh McMillan]

It seems important to me, eventhough this might be in conflict with KC's policy to not give away how the KittyCatS genetics work, if there would be given some facts by them on this forum.
Such as asking the breeder for a pedigree sign if you are in doubt and asking someone you trust to help you with analysing a pedigree with you if you can't interpret it.
Maybe the time, now more than a year later, has shown this to be needed because there can be a lot of money involved with obtaining cats.
And it is in nobody's interest if people don't receive what they think they have obtained.
I think it is important new people at least have access to official facts given by KC before they obtain cats.
Simple things such as can a cat hide something or not, or is it possibly hiding it etc., maybe even with a reference to Saga's docs.
Some convenient and understandable guidelines for people just so they know what they should be aware of before they obtain a cat from a 3rd party.
I'm not sure if this is at all possible within KC's policy but I think this is needed to protect customer and seller.
And also to avoid people are pointed at as being a bad seller because everyone can know what to be aware of before they sell or obtain a cat.
And this might generate more tolerance towards the new breeders who obviously, without a bad intention, can make mistakes when they have just started to sell their cats.

[Liriel Garnet]

(05-29-2012 03:57 PM)Tad Carlucci Wrote:  

(05-29-2012 11:47 AM)Liriel Garnet Wrote:  If *both* parents have a curious eye hiding myst and the curious shows, it's actually a 2/3 chance for the myst to be hiding

To be accurate: the odds in this case are actually only 50%. One parent gives curious. The other gives either curious or mysterious. The fact that you don't know which parent passed the visible curious does not effect the odds for the hidden.

---

I can see how this mistake is made to arrive at 2-in-3 odds. But to actually get 2-in-3 odds, one parent would have to pass both the hidden and the visible allele; which is not possible.

---

Which leads to one of my pet peeves for claims .. odds which have either a numerator or a denominator which is not a power of 2. Such as the 2-in-3 odds claimed above.

---

Actually it is accurate *with* the proviso that I stated, that the curious eye shows. the possibilities for mating two curious hiding mysterious are as follows:

CC, Cm, Cm, mm

if the mysterious shows, we know it's the mm. If the curious shows, there are three possibilities, two of which hide the mysterious, thus if curious shows, there's a 2/3 chance the mysterious eye hides.

---

(05-29-2012 03:46 PM)Brunabug Nightfire Wrote:  I am glad to see this topic. Just the other day I saw someone posting that there was a Toy Balinese Lilac Lynx kitten box up for auction. Come to find out after looking at the box information it was only a Toy Bengal Snow and it's father was a Balinese Lilac Lynx.

I just dont get how or why people make such a big deal about the hidden traits in the really recessive furs, eyes, tails, ears etc... I personally like to see traits and not worry so much about the hidden traits. We all know that there is always something more recessive behind anything that is not a genesis trait. And if you spend the time to pull that hidden trait it is worth far more than taking the credit for something that may be hidding or not.

Completely agree with you about the 'bait and switch' type of advertising. It's wrong and it will eventually damage your reputation for being someone that your potential buyers can trust. If you're in this for the long haul, cheating people and/or advertising one thing and having another is just not smart.

As for why the hidden traits are important, many times they are the traits that we're trying to actually breed out.

---

(05-30-2012 08:26 AM)Kayleigh McMillan Wrote:  It seems important to me, eventhough this might be in conflict with KC's policy to not give away how the KittyCatS genetics work, if there would be given some facts by them on this forum.
Such as asking the breeder for a pedigree sign if you are in doubt and asking someone you trust to help you with analysing a pedigree with you if you can't interpret it.
Maybe the time, now more than a year later, has shown this to be needed because there can be a lot of money involved with obtaining cats.
And it is in nobody's interest if people don't receive what they think they have obtained.
I think it is important new people at least have access to official facts given by KC before they obtain cats.
Simple things such as can a cat hide something or not, or is it possibly hiding it etc., maybe even with a reference to Saga's docs.
Some convenient and understandable guidelines for people just so they know what they should be aware of before they obtain a cat from a 3rd party.
I'm not sure if this is at all possible within KC's policy but I think this is needed to protect customer and seller.
And also to avoid people are pointed at as being a bad seller because everyone can know what to be aware of before they sell or obtain a cat.
And this might generate more tolerance towards the new breeders who obviously, without a bad intention, can make mistakes when they have just started to sell their cats.

Callie has a package that she will give to people (I assume she still does, she gave me one many moons ago) that includes some of the facts about traits that saga gathered from equi and other sources, along with the trait talk transcript that's on saga's site and a link to her charts.

You make another excellent point as well... if you're buying a cat and you cannot see what the person is claiming in the pedigree, then ask questions.... ask the seller for more data, talk to one of the numerous people on this forum who have offered to help in a situation like this. I know that I get a fair number asking me to verify whether something could be or not. I'm happy to help because I think false claims hurt everyone.

[Tad Carlucci]

Well, go on believing that the odds are 2-in-3 and when you can't do better than 2-in-4 you can complain about the randomness not being "fair"

You have two parents, both showing Curious, both known to hide Mysterious. The offspring shows Curious: the odds of the offspring hiding Mysterious are 1-in-2. Yes, when you do the production chart for the parents there are three slots showing Curious and, yes, two of those slots hide Mysterious. But that does not make the odds 2-in-3 .. the odds are 1-in-2.

Known: offspring shows curious
Therefor Known: one parent passed Curious.
Production set: C x Cm -> Cc, Cm

[Saga Felix]

In the middle of this whole discussion, THIS made me happy:

(05-29-2012 03:46 PM)Brunabug Nightfire Wrote:  We all know that there is always something more recessive behind anything that is not a genesis trait.

The fact that this is stated as an obvious truth makes me all warm and fussy (even if genesis traits of course ALSO hides something more recessive ;-))

Why? -Well... Because I remember the feeling of banging my head into a very hard brick wall when trying to convince people that this is indeed the case. -And now, every new breeder just KNOWS this, and even the most stubborn of the old ones seem either convinced or at least silent on the matter

Sorry for going off-topic here - But really, this made my day. Thank you to everyone who just KNOWS this, no matter if you know why you know it or not

----

Back on topic: To me, "pure" means only one thing: "This cat has the same trait hidden as it has shown".
"Pure" used for anything else just speaks of the owner's lack of knowledge about shown/hidden traits - or if he/she knows, it's even worse: Then it speaks of his/her willingness to mislead less knowledgeable people.

"Hidden" means "This cat has X as a hidden trait" - and no, NOT "This cat's parent had X as a hidden/shown trait" or "This cat's grandparent's cousin once had a kitten that showed this" or "There is a possibility that....". No. You do NOT write "This can hides X" unless you know - or again, you either display a lack of knowledge or a willingness to mislead.

"In BG" on the other hand, is a VERY lose term that can cover you up in almost ANY case - as long as the trait in question IS of course actually in the background ;-) Use this if in doubt.

---------------

Aaand about the 2/3 chance that Tad is speaking against:

I know what you mean, Tad, and even though I was the one to teach everyone about the 2/3 chance in case both parents hide it in the first place, I agree more than you'd most likely think at first glance.

When I first started using percentage-chances, this particular thing was quite an issue for me. If both parents show A and hide b, and the kitten shows A, what are the chances it hides b? What should I tell people? -Or should I tell them both theories? (I quickly decided against the latter, knowing TOO well what kind of confusion and arguments any un-clear messages can be source of.)

There are two solutions: Either, you conclude that ONE parent obviously threw trait A, and then there is a 50% chance that the other threw either A or b. Hence, equal chances = 50%. This is what you say, and I understand the argument perfectly.

HOWEVER - if you look at basic genetic rules: Ab + Ab = AA, Ab, bA or bb, where AA, Ab and bA will all show trait A. So, 2/3 chance that it hides trait b.

And this:
If I mate Ab + Ab, according to your logic, the chance for the kitten to hide b is THE EXACT SAME as if I mate Ab + AA. Is that likely? In my logic, the chances of course improves if I give the kitten TWO chances to inherit b instead of just one, right?

Also:
With the 50%-theory, how do you explain the sudden shift of chances if the parents do NOT have the same shown trait, but only the same hidden, like this:
Ac + Bc = AB, Ac, Bc or cc. In this case, you have to agree that if A is dominant to B, and B to c, only 2 kittens (the AA and the Ac) will leave a doubt if they inherited c, and THEIR chance will be 50% - again, leaving the chances of hiding c between the 3 kittens who do NOT show it (AB, Ac & Bc) at 2/3.

I hope you understand why I went for the 2/3 chance here. -And no, it wasn't "just because I felt like it", it was because that once I considered every aspect of it very carefully, I more and more believed that this is closer to the truth of things - both for the above mentioned reasons, but also because I have a long experience of un-boxing those "maybe-kittens" where both parents had "it" hidden, and in most cases by far, they DO indeed hide that "it".

So yes, while I still understand that in strict rules of logic, the chances can easily be interpreted as 50%, I still claim that 2/3 is closer to the actual truth :-) I hope you understand my arguments here.


-Saga

[Tad Carlucci]

The "2/3" odds are the odds that I, being greedy, keep the Mysterious offspring for myself and sell you a Curious offspring which hides Mysterious. But for a given Curious cat I do sell you, the odds are 1/2 that it contains Mysterious.

---

This dichotomy is why sellers feel traits get spread around so fast. The odds are strong that you'll sell someone else the genetics in your "failures" even through the odds are "even" they'll actually receive the genetics.