Early patterns of the TB.

[Pan Zareta]

Della Moore

All Breed:
http://www.allbreedpedigree.com/della+moore
(And there are two Della Moore's)

Then there is the description here, which, going back, doesn't jive:

http://www.diamondhquarterhorses.com/Della_Moore.html

The allbreed db ped w/ yr foaled as 1912 is similar to Larry Thornton's (the one given at the diamondhqh site), but her dam's pedigree is unlikely by date. War Horse's foal record is in the ASB. It's unlikely that a 1900 model had progeny before 1903 at the earliest. He, Shamrock, and Belle would all have to have been bred at 2. Sire's pedigree has errors, but they aren't germaine.

This is Thornton's version of Della's tf:
Della Moore 1912 x Old D.J (aka Dedier)
Belle x Shamrock (nd x Blakemore 1889)
Dilly [aka: La Hernandez) x Dewey (1899)
Ella x Iroquois 1878
x Beauregard

Same problem w/ dates if Shamrock's dam really was x War Horse 1900.

Blakemore was actually by Silent Friend Jr., dam Miss Pilgrim 1880 x Pilgrim [Lexington], 2d dam Ingomar x Socks, breeder Tom Blakemore, Abilene, TX.

It's unlikely that Iroquois covered any mares by unrecorded sires. Two possibilities for Beauregard would be:
[Wilson's] Beauregard (nd 1859 or later x *Fly-By-Night, dam x Red Eye (probably the one x Boston)
[Hawkin's] Beauregard 1858 x [Hawkins'] Priam - [Hawkins'] Fashion x *Trustee

http://www.wwrqtrhorses.com/familytree.html

(Perigwig's sire, for example)

I can't find an importation record for *Queue in the ASB, but in the dams under their sires section of ASB 8, as sire of May Roxbury, he's show as x Valour - Periwig x Macaroni.

At this late date I suppose it doesn't matter.

To those of us that don't believe in credibility based solely on repetition it is. Thanks for the links.

[aethervox]

One thing I'm noticing while going through the studbook is that the early breeders did a lot more close inbreeding than they do today.

An extreme example is a horse called Mark Prospect. His 2nd, 3rd and 4th dams were all by imported Janus.

[Pan Zareta]

One thing I'm noticing while going through the studbook is that the early breeders did a lot more close inbreeding than they do today.

An extreme example is a horse called Mark Prospect. His 2nd, 3rd and 4th dams were all by imported Janus.

Three successive mares by *Janus isn't unheard of, but Mark Prospect's pedigree as given ASB 2:435 has major issues by date, incl. the # and/or placement of *Janus crosses.

Of the two imported horses named (or aka) Sprightly, the only one w/ recorded progeny (rec. GSB as Slip 1768 ch c x Wildman's Babraham - mare x Rogers' Babraham, sent to MD 1773) was not in the stud until 1775. That affords time for at most one x of *Janus (1746-1780) betw *Sprightly & Spadille. If there were addt'l. x's of *Janus, they'd have to have been before the mare x *Sprightly.

Also, I'm a bit dubious that Lee's Mark Anthony (~1762-?) would have had a son still alive in 1820 (as the entry suggests Mark Prospect was) but it's certainly not impossible, esp. if he had quite a bit of *Janus in him.

[Matchemforever]

I'm thinking that although there tended to be quite a bit of inbreeding in the very early years of the Thoroughbred, that they could get away with it because the horses were not that far away from being unrelated?

If you're looking to set the "type," isn't that one way to go about it?

I mean, maybe they were crossing horses that were 2, 5, maybe 10 generations from the breeds beginnings.

But nowdays, they've had 100-200 years of using the same lines and families.

I guess I'm asking if inbreeding in the beginning carried as much risk as it might today, since the gene pool has been closed up tight for so long.

[diomed]

I'm thinking that although there tended to be quite a bit of inbreeding in the very early years of the Thoroughbred, that they could get away with it because the horses were not that far away from being unrelated?

If you're looking to set the "type," isn't that one way to go about it?

I mean, maybe they were crossing horses that were 2, 5, maybe 10 generations from the breeds beginnings.

But nowdays, they've had 100-200 years of using the same lines and families.

I guess I'm asking if inbreeding in the beginning carried as much risk as it might today, since the gene pool has been closed up tight for so long.

I think it's quite plausible that some of what you said is true.
Especially in regards to fixing a "type" in the early beginnings, however the breed is FAR from "true to type" IMO.
Being that the TB descends from multiple breeds, they still retain much hybrid nature and inbreeding is still necessary from time to time.
Not in the measure of the "old" days of course..LOL!
JMO. But then again, I am not here to really discuss breeding theories as much as the actual "history" of the breed.

I was picking away at the TB Beduino's pedigree the other day and found some very interesting things in his background.
Not only does he have Depth Charge(noted TB who was a QH sire), his sire is 4x3 to the mare Queen Herodias. Check out what family she traces to...
Hmmmm.......

Sorry that I haven't been participating much lately. I have been busy with school, moving(yes, packing things, etc), and dealing with a visitation/funeral for the mother of my dearest friend.
I have hardly any time to lurk, let alone post.
When I get settled in, I should be back in the mix.

[Elles]

Yes, this is some powerful speedy linebreeding indeed.
http://www.pedigreequery.com/romany+royal

[aethervox]

Also, I'm a bit dubious that Lee's Mark Anthony (~1762-?) would have had a son still alive in 1820 (as the entry suggests Mark Prospect was) but it's certainly not impossible, esp. if he had quite a bit of *Janus in him.

I think the 1820 date was a misunderstanding on Bruce's part. In Edgar's stud book he listed the people he got information from, as well as the year they gave him that information. In Mark Prospect's case the information was obtained by Edgar in 1820 from Mr. Bennett. I think Bruce took that to mean that the horse was owned by Mr. Bennett in 1820.

It doesn't explain the other discrepancies, but at least one mystery is cleared up!

[Matchemforever]

Diomed- Completely understand. I have too many things on my plate right now and shouldn't be playing hooky here or anywhere else!

I was reading a discussion in another forum that involved some thoughts on mitochondrial DNA.

So it's transmitted by the mare but further research would be involved to see if that is totally so, it seems.

Since the stallion gets one X chromosome, he's got the mitochondrial DNA from his dam.

I'm thinking that it's going to be the influence of the sire that in the end, is part of WHAT or HOW that mare mitochondrial DNA is going to be expressed in the filly foals. Not what is transmitted, but the way it's expressed. If there weren't other factors involved, you could just breed outstanding mares, to a stallion they crossed well with, and they would produce outstanding offspring all the time. But that's not the case. Then you have offspring, full siblings, where one is an outstanding performer but then the other one is the outstanding breeding horse. Which, as I think on it just now, might imply that both are the same traits but expressed differently? (i.e., "you get to run like the wind and you get to pass the ability on)

After chasing down lines and thinking about the large heart X, while it's important, it's just another part of the mix. Perhaps broodmare sires contribute in a yet unknown way to the mitochondrial DNA mix of the broodmares.

I'm wondering if that's why, ultimately, the Byerley and Godolpin ended up mostly in the bottom of the pedigree. Could again be seen to be an affinity between the English horses and the imports.

Haun was quoted as saying that she believed 28% of Arabians had the large heart- but was there any research to back that up?

[Bill from WA]

I found this interesting.

http://www.ucalgary.ca/UofC/eduweb/virt ... nting.html

Bill

[vineyridge]

I found this interesting.

http://www.ucalgary.ca/UofC/eduweb/virt ... nting.html

Bill

It's like trying to read a foreign language to me. Can you make sense of the jargon?

[xfactor fan]

The whole imprinting thing was discovered and documented by the Australians who found a sheep mutant with a very large rear. Nice thing to have in a sheep that you are going to eat.

First generation behaved like a regular dominant. Then in the next generation it got wierd, and they had some sheep with the large rear showing up as expected, others not showing the trait at all. Took 20 years of very careful work to get enough info to figure out what was going on.

In this case which parent transmitted the gene governed expression.


A imprinted gene has a small region (think recording tape) where sex of the parent information is recorded. So the embryo "know" that some genes have maternal origin while others have paternal origin. Once the genes are tagged, then the information is ignored or expressed depending on the sex of the developing embryo.

Odd to say the least.

Related to this, and it may be why this mechanism is still around, is the "war" between how the sexes reproduce. In horses where one male sires lots of foals, the male reproductive stratigy is to have large health foals hit the ground. No matter what it does to the future reproductive health of the mare. The mares on the other hand want foals that are easy to deliver--in other words small--and the mare needs to come out of the delivery in good shape and survive to have more foals.

Hope this helps.

[vineyridge]

Thanks.

That helps a lot. I think I'm going to have to buckle down and do the MIT online genetics course to be able to understand what y'all are talking about.

[Pan Zareta]

Once the genes are tagged, then the information is ignored or expressed depending on the sex of the developing embryo.

In regard to genetic imprinting, don't you mean depending on the parent of origin?

[xfactor fan]

yes that too. But some genes are going to work with female embryos and other will only work with male embryos.

[Matchemforever]

Well, talk about dividing out the talent, I was looking around on another site and maybe it's the same Vineyridge that found this one:

http://www.pedigreequery.com/independence

That Nasrullah/Miss Disco cross was quite productive.

Bold Ruler got to be a great runner and sire;

Independence got to be a great chaser and looks like pretty good sire at that;

Daughters that appear to have been no slouches themselves. Would have kept taking that mare to Nasrullah but when did Nasrullah pass on- I see one time they took Miss Disco to Tom Rool then back to Nasrullah.

That kind of consistency is pretty rare, isn't it? I do mean consistency in talent, if not in the same venues!

Wonder if Independence took after Discovery more.

Just what genes get expressed looks like more and more of a crap shoot, except in this case, most of them seem to have been superlative.