She's a BAY?!?!?

Evenheaven · Postby **Evenheaven** » Thu Dec 16, 2010 7:51 am

Ok... so JC registered her as a bay

yet, her full brother from 2009, they registered as white....

WTF?!?!??!?!?[/img]

madelyn · Postby **madelyn** » Thu Dec 16, 2010 2:47 pm

Could they be getting the base color from the DNA?

Jorge · Postby **Jorge** » Thu Dec 16, 2010 6:18 pm

For normal usage (lets call it, for "daily racing form" programming) I do favor using phenotype-based nomenclature rather than genotype based nomenclature.

Not that I am against genotype based terminologies, on contrary it's the more accurate scientific standard, but if we are going to become real "Mc Coy" with genotypes, then let us limit ourselves to genotypical letters like "E", etc. But then the panorama will become quite complicated. In other words, not much user friendly for the average "Joe Program Enthusiast". For that reason, I prefer to simply apply "phenotype" based nomenclatures.

Based on this rationale, I would call the aforementioned 2010 filly a "Stained White" and I would repeat the same nomenclature for her 2009 elder brother.

If she would have been more "Bay" than "White" I would have called her "Marked Bay". If you want a visual example just take a look at the photo of Airdrie Apache who is more "Chestnut" than "White", reason why according to my view he should be labeled as "Marked Chestnut".

In synthesis, this is a simple way to apply "phenotype" nomenclatures rather than "genotype" based ones. What I am trying to avoid is an ambiguous collage between "genotypical" and "phenotypical" terminologies.

Derby Lyn · Postby **Derby Lyn** » Thu Dec 16, 2010 7:18 pm

I don't know but she is way too darn cute.

accphotography · Postby **accphotography** » Thu Dec 16, 2010 8:23 pm

She has too much color for TJC to register her as white. As least they got the base color right and didn't call her roan (like they did her grandsire :roll:

).

Jorge · Postby **Jorge** » Thu Dec 16, 2010 8:36 pm

accphotography wrote:She has too much color for TJC to register her as white.

That's precisely the reason why I am trying to suggest the adoption of the term "Stained White". This would be a catch-all term for referring to majoritarily "White", yet non immaculate white equines.

If they don't want tp create the term "Stained White" as a separate
nomenclature from "White", they may redefine the "White" color as "White or Stained White" to follow the same rationale applied when referring to a "Dark Bay or Brown" equine.

Opinions?

accphotography · Postby **accphotography** » Thu Dec 16, 2010 9:24 pm

Why not just "pinto"? That term has been used for a century or more and is known by virtually everyone.

angrovestud · Postby **angrovestud** » Fri Dec 17, 2010 4:21 am

in the Ul they are just using painted we have all ours down as that

Evenheaven · Postby **Evenheaven** » Fri Dec 17, 2010 6:19 am

I guess here is my problem: we have aspirations of this filly (and her brother) to make it to the racetrack.... so what is the steward going to say when they look at her papers and then her? Clearly, she's not a bay - well at least not in the standard that "people" think of when they think of bay. To boot, she is a descendent of Puchilingui, who had very odd marks himself, which I know Mr. Jerry Tyler had issues with the JC when he went to the breeding shed and produced a bay foal when bred to a chestnut QH and AQHA said it was impossible because JC ORIGINALLY had him registered as a CHESTNUT before they changed him to the incorrect "roan" on his papers when Mr. Tyler filed a suit against them. Of course, my pockets are way too light to even consider filing a suit against the JC, but I really think it's time that they recognize not only some form of stained white, but also buckskin and at least smokey black if not other colors....

springboro · Postby **springboro** » Fri Dec 17, 2010 8:32 am

Hey E, on a way off topic note....

That flash thing you have on your first page of your website bogs my computer down each time. Can you tweak it or remove it? As far as I can tell, it's just an audio component. I'd love to browse your pages but get too bogged down to get there.

Just a thought! Beautiful filly!

Evenheaven · Postby **Evenheaven** » Fri Dec 17, 2010 9:01 am

Spring...
should work now.. let me know!

Sailor Kenshin · Postby **Sailor Kenshin** » Fri Dec 17, 2010 10:06 am

Phenotype is what? Based on how the horse looks?

I can't see why they didn't register her as roan then.... given the limitations of the JC's colors.

springboro · Postby **springboro** » Fri Dec 17, 2010 10:08 am

Evenheaven wrote:Spring...
should work now.. let me know!

WONDERFUL! thanks!!

Jorge · Postby **Jorge** » Fri Dec 17, 2010 12:16 pm

accphotography wrote:Why not just "pinto"? That term has been used for a century or more and is known by virtually everyone.

In this case I would suggest using the following nomenclatures:

"Marked Bay"
"Marked Chestnut"
"Marked Brown" (or "Marked Dark Bay or Brown")
"Marked Black"

This to avoid using such a generic term ("Pinto"). But I would prefer your suggestion rather than labeling our subject filly simply as a "Bay".

accphotography · Postby **accphotography** » Fri Dec 17, 2010 6:13 pm

As far as I am concerned "marked" pretty much means exactly the same thing as "pinto".

The steward should very well know TJC's color rules. If they do then they will know that that foal doesn't fall into TJC's white category.