I think you'll find they are altering the colour registrations on all breeds. In poodles the colour has to be as breed standard i.e. black, white, blue, brown etc anything that falls outside that can still be registered but is registered as non-standard. However, the flaw with that is that if you just put non-standard then you have no idea what colour they are, so I personally feel it should be non-standard (then the colour in brackets) so for my black and tans it would be non-standard (Black and Tan) so that the colour is still logged and the registrations are accurate.
I agree 100% that all KC registered dogs should be permenantly identified, plus DNA profiled plus only puppies that are paternity tested should be accepted for registration.
Becky

I think maybe going a bit far to insist on DNA ID for registration, but definitely for breeding.

Yes, colour description is a nightmare! Not only incorrect naming of colour, we also have variations across the breeds. For instance the colour that is genetically brown (B locus for Brown), some breeds insist on calling red eg Border Collies and Australian Shepherds. The same colour is copper (Siberians), chocolate (Labradors) and liver (some other gundogs). That also gives us three genetically different types of red across the breeds.

I didn't think it was so common in BCs, at least not in show breeding. Unfortunately not the same in Great Danes where harlequin x harlequin is still common I believe.

Sorry just noticed the first para

This new anouncement is something quite different as they are proposing to refuse registration on non compatible colours. Non standard is just a description of a colour that isn't allowed in that particular breed. Yes, do agree that the actual colour should also be recorded.

Because of my interest in 'wrong coloured' poodles, all this talk was a worry to me especially with the costs of importing (although to be honest if they did stop registering them it woudn't bother me they'd just go on the activities register!) so I rang the KC and their intention is to use the non-standard for 'wrong colours'.
The statement they have released pertains to what they believe are impossible colours to achieve through a particular colour mating which is slightly different. However, I would hope with paternity testing that should an anomaly crop up they will register.
Becky

Yes this is exactly what I meant by being on dodgy ground where they've said -

"For instance, if two black parents could only produce black puppies in a given breed, the restriction could be implemented."

Black being the most dominant colour, could hide all sorts of recessives and even if it's a breed where black is the only known colour, there could be some very rare colours lurking in the gene pool. Like yellow that ocassionally crops up in Flatcoat litters, it doesn't take a mutation to allow this, so shouldn't be classed as non-compatible.

I wonder if Labs have recessive black because if they have 2 yellows but both are Kk carrying a then technically you could get a black pup from 2 yellows or have I got that wrong?
Becky

Well no you couldn't get black from two yellows because yellow is recessive ee, so all the pups (barring mutation) would be ee too, so yellow. K locus doesn't have any influence on ee.

Of course I knew I was missing something lol! It didn't make sense when I wrote it
Becky