Thank you for sharing Gajulia,
That pedigree indicates dominant to Burmilla - Chocolate Shaded not recessive though since it was pulled by the Burmilla - Chocolate Silver Shaded.
Regarding Ami, while I don't doubt that you are sure the line is solid this isn't enough history to remove any doubt that something else might hide so it would be better to see what fur the Burmilla - Chocolate Caramel actually hides.
Am I missing something here? Picford is the newborn burmilla cho caramels father and also the mothers father. We know Ami can not hide the new fur since the line is too old. Picford hides the new burmilla cho caramel fur. It has to be hidden under the burmilla cho showing on Camilla making the new fur recessive to burmilla chocolate.
(08-09-2018 02:46 AM)MitsuruKirijo06 Resident Wrote: Am I missing something here? Picford is the newborn burmilla cho caramels father and also the mothers father. We know Ami can not hide the new fur since the line is too old. Picford hides the new burmilla cho caramel fur. It has to be hidden under the burmilla cho showing on Camilla making the new fur recessive to burmilla chocolate.
I agree, Mitsu. The original Ami/Picford breeding that produced Camila means that whatever Picford is hiding is hidden in Camila: Burmilla Chocolate Silver Shaded or something more recessive, as his two fur traits are Gen Pearl II and a more recessive hidden fur. When Camila was bred back to Picford, Burmilla Chocolate Caramel resulted. At this point there is no other fur Picford could hide, as we know Camila hides HIS hidden as well. I think that this constitutes proof of Burmilla Chocolate Caramel being recessive to Burmilla Chocolate Silver Shaded, and this kitten's fur is pure.
(08-09-2018 07:43 AM)Songdog Woolley Wrote: I think that this constitutes proof of Burmilla Chocolate Caramel being recessive to Burmilla Chocolate Silver Shaded, and this kitten's fur is pure.
It's a simple backbreed. I think, Arwen, you're not noticing that it's a backbreed.
Ami's pedigree is irrelevant as we know that Picford threw his hidden (not genesis Pearl 2). Burm CSS shows, and the new Burm ChocCar had to come from Picford and pop out from under the BurmCSS.
If you were to look at it backwards and assume that Burm ChocCar were dominant, then we would see the Burm ChocCar covering the BurmCSS on Camila. And a backbreed with Picford would still show Burm ChocCar.
I agree that this shows that Burmilla ChocCAramel is recessive to the Burmilla CSS.
This discussion perfectly demonstrates why the forum based charts are so important and useful to the community. If someone is tired or, dare I say, overworked with so many new proofs, the community is able to help with a fresh set of eyes. I am very grateful for the forum based charts, thank you Arwen for all of your work.
(08-09-2018 08:43 PM)Peaches Latrell Wrote: This discussion perfectly demonstrates why the forum based charts are so important and useful to the community. If someone is tired or, dare I say, overworked with so many new proofs, the community is able to help with a fresh set of eyes. I am very grateful for the forum based charts, thank you Arwen for all of your work.
Yes, ABSOLUTELY thank you to Arwen for all of your work! My reply was simply to add my two cents on how I interpreted the pedigree. We all rely on these charts and it's wonderful how the community comes together to help build them!
Apologies I did indeed not notice that it was a backbreed. My eyes do go funny staring at all the new pedigrees. I guess Ami threw me since it was irrelevant and I must have assumed it was the caramesl mum. This is indeed why we do this on the forum, everyone can make a mistake so this transparency allows others to shout out. I am away til the 17th but will update the charts when I am home on my pc again.
Thanks to those who noticed and my apologies again.