(08-16-2014 07:29 AM)Tad Carlucci Wrote: You asked what the Smokey was hiding. That would not prove anything.
Yes it would, Tad, sorry. We did not make a mistake.
For example, if Pia could be proven to be a pure SmokeyIV (SmokeyIV hiding SmokeyIV) then you could prove that SmokeyIV is recessive to DiamondIV... and then, using Tala 01-11's pedigree, you could go on to prove that it was recessive to FlameIV. This would give you the complete order of all the Gen4 furs.
Another example (everyone keep in mind that these are examples only): if it was clear that Pia was hiding DiamondIV - That would prove that SmokeyIV was dominant to DiamondIV. One would then be left with the task of trying to figure out where SmokeyIV fits in relation to DominoIV and CocoIV (a nice project for someone who happens to have the furs handy!)
If anyone would like to see explanations of these two examples (perhaps as a learning experience?) then let me know. Just remember that these are theoretical examples.
So, this is why I requested more information. It was not a mistake or an oversight.
=======
For everyone re. the 2 proofs required: I think the original reasoning was because of a specific situation that caused the validity of the actual documents that provided proof of a trait's position to come into question. Saga then required 2 independent proofs for very recessive traits just to make sure - The most recessive traits drive the market considerably and she was just trying to make sure that there was incontestable proof before publishing results for recessive traits.
Charles and I only had a few minutes to discuss this ourselves but we're going to leave this alone for now and continue to look for 2 independent proofs of the more recessive traits. Clearly in many proofs the results are extremely obvious and it seems silly to waste time looking for a second proof, I agree. However, based on Saga's past experience, I'd rather waste a little extra time if it means being thorough and maintaining the integrity of the charts.
I've found assumptions in the proofs that were used to update the charts that were copied from Saga's (I forget who copied that stuff from Saga at the moment, sorry... I'm sure it will come to me after I press Send). I'm sure the person was probably just using information they had about their own cats that wasn't available in the pedigree, however Charles and I are very thorough and refuse to make assumptions or guesses when it comes to keeping the charts updated. If that bothers someone, sorry, but the integrity of Saga's charts is more important.
Anyway, thanks to everyone for the support, I really appreciate it
But let's not all fight back and forth, ok? We're all interested in helping keep the charts up to date. If someone says something you don't like, just ignore it.
Don't worry about Charles and I; we can't be bothered to waste our thoughts or energy on any negative things people say about us, and we don't want you to, either. We'd rather everyone focus their energies on breeding awesome cats and sharing trait puzzles with each other.
If anyone has any constructive information, we welcome it, but keep let's keep the insults and accusations to ourselves (or vent to a good friend in private
)
Sound good? Good!
Because wow, we received some doozies over the weekend and can't wait to share them with everyone!
