Drop Menu Website Template

Hello There, Guest! Register

Post Reply 
Regarding Proofs
07-22-2018, 08:57 AM
Post: #1
Regarding Proofs
Hi everyone
I'd just like to address something about why we require absolute proofs.
While I have no doubt that many breeders know their lines inside out and that when they say thats all thats there it really is, we do need to see a proof that we can look back on in the future, when said breeder may have left KittyCats or the chart admins have changed, and be able to say oh yes this is definitely right, not do we need to contact a person who mayhave left SL to find out if their line predated a more recessive newer trait.

I have an exapmle here that shows you that no matter how sure someone can be its not always enough.

Meet AirWrecka. I bought her at auction, both the seller and the auctioneer called her Solid, not pure becae we have no proof, but Solid because as far back as both could look there was no other fur in the pedigrees

[Image: d79b9575a560d9c6c5137970dc405182.png]

Heres a gyazo of AirWrecka on a profiler giving us those lovely across the board Russian Whites

[Image: 054c5a5178415fb09ec83bfb6c115d1b.png]

And meet AirWrecka's babies, all have the same Father a Foxie - Argyle

[Image: 26079c91d5bbcc2908f75600339424a8.png]

in 3 babies I have not a single Russian - White despite it being the dominant fur

here is a shot of the charts with the 3 furs circled so theres no doubt at all that the Russian White was hiding Australian Mist - Dark Chocolate

[Image: 3188797ac146ff69069a367dfd4d6ad7.png]

For the record the Foxie - Argyle hides Burmilla - Lilac Shaded or more recessive directly from his mother.

I did of course contact the breeder to let her know, I'm not at all upset, the Babies I'm getting are gorgeous.

So when we ask you for more information on background pedigrees or to pull hiddens back out to check this is why, had I bred her to an unplaced fur and assumed Russian White hid I could well have been wrong, if I use her now though I can say absolutely the cat hides at least Australian Mist - Dark Chocolate POSSIBLY Russian - White but I'd need to check which.

I'm hearing that the Chart Admins are too picky or are putting people off posting by saying things aren't good enough, well don't be put off. Every pedigree posted helps even if its not a proof because it helps others know where to start their testing or what cats might be ok to trait up their new stuff. Plus its a great chance to show off your new cats Smile

Forum Based Charts

KittyCats Discoveries & Retirements
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
 Thanks given by: Songdog Woolley , Barry Ballyhoo , Illuminatra Resident , Flair Daxeline , Morgan Trevellion , Ivy Norsk , Ellen Ireland , Tad Carlucci , MsMagick Resident , Navaar Resident , Jelly Supply
07-23-2018, 10:18 AM
Post: #2
RE: Regarding Proofs
Thank you Arwen... that's a very clear display.

I wanted to add that KittyCats proofs - like geometical proofs - are rigorous demostrations that can be read in only one way.
That is to say that if there is any ambiguity in the pedigree that cannot be resolved to a fact by more unambiguous info (usually another pedigree, sometimes the proven date of a line), it isn't a proof.
It may be "suggestive" but it isn't a proof.

So in Arwen's russian white demonstration, virtually all of those russian whites can be described as" russian white hiding russian white or rec" and we don't know what the "hidden" or "rec" is. Arwen got the kitties, tested and found out that the hidden was aussie dark chocolate.

And that's the way it has to be with a Proof; we generally have to pull the hidden to find out what's true about the cats. Most of the one-page proofs up on the forum take the form of the pull of the hidden to show - without any ambiguity - one trait showing and the hidden trait displayed.

Wendi and Charles did several lectures on doing proofs which can be found here:
The Proof is in the Pussy 1
The Proof is in the Pussy 2

The Pawsable Traits Reference manager and a Chart keeper.
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
 Thanks given by: Songdog Woolley , Tad Carlucci , MsMagick Resident , Jelly Supply
07-23-2018, 02:41 PM
Post: #3
RE: Regarding Proofs
Saga's list had a requirement for two proofs before they would accept the fact. This had nothing to do with the proofs but was, rather, an attempt to avoid error in the analysis due to their small staff. For the Forum-based proofs, we're happy with one proof because, if an error is make, someone will post about it. Additional proofs are nice, especially if some require a bit of logical deduction to complete.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
 Thanks given by: Arwen Swordthain , MsMagick Resident
07-24-2018, 01:33 AM
Post: #4
RE: Regarding Proofs
No such thing as too many proofs and the great thing about all proofs used being posted on the forum is that everyone can see whats going on and often people do post confirmation proofs.
Many of us post partials as well to keep people updated on where we are with a certain test then return with updates on how we are doing pulling the hid from the partially tested cat.
Often if a proof is a little complicated someone will decifer it and post the info on the thread for future reference and to help out anyone who might be scratching their head and trust me we all do sometimes Smile

I love that this community has embraced the sharing of pedigrees on their way to proofs, these threads are a great learning tool for new breeders and now often show a trait from discovery to placement and the community effort in placing it.

Forum Based Charts

KittyCats Discoveries & Retirements
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply 

User(s) browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)