Their eyes are far from normal size

Silks are not even well set and are quite `flat` on the surface [ not explaining that very well ], and Defa`s, that photo was taken the day he had his eye op when, with respect, as my vet who did the op commented to me afterward on how small his eyes are having had just done an op involving exposing more than whats just seen on a photo when a dog has its eyes open then I have to say he has a fair inkling what he`s talking about :smt001

Along these lines in fact, from the link you gave

"Microphthalmia, or an abnormally small eye, is the most common eye defect seen in homozygous merles. This can vary from just noticeable to appearing to have no eye at all (anophthalmia)."

He did actually use the word `abnormal` re the size of Defa`s eyes...

Again, with respect, Defa has been with me for many years, I know which is age greying on him and which isn`t. I also know what is flecking or spotting as opposed to bits of merle no matter how small an area on my dogs, I get to see them quite close up

George Strain discounted simple extreme white in Defa [ and Willow but he`s more obvious anyway ].

The fact is, whether you choose to disbelieve me or not, Defa`s parentage was known, he was definitely of merle to merle mating, there is no doubt on it, it was confirmed years ago by the rescue via his papers and conformation by a man who personally knew both the parents.

I don`t actually need to prove anyone wrong, knowing my boys` are deaf double merles is precisely why I am so staunchly against merle to merle breeding, I live with the results of it every day and have done for the last 11 years in Defa`s case, 10 in Willows case, both known beyond any doubt to have been bred from merle to merle.
In Silks case, while her parents could`nt be confirmed there is enough about her to make a well educated guess, [ not just by me ! ], that she was also from merle to merle, though probably through sheer bad luck in her case rather than a deliberate breeding for more merles.

I tried to get better pics of Silk [ thats why I`ve been so long responding ], but they still bleach and the only one which did`nt, which to me shows up the tones I can see are there in the flesh but you would probably say they are shadows so it would be a pointless exercise

Well Patch, I can only hope that you do try some more photos. I'm genuinely interested in seeing more. But could you just post the photos you sent to Strain.

The merle x merle breeding BTW, doesn't mean that the pups will necessarily be double merle. It gives just a 25% chance.

Some photos here showing double merle microphthalmia of the eyes -

http://www.lethalwhites.com/eyes.html

Nearly ten years after I sent them do you really think I could possibly remember exactly which photos I sent him, let alone the time it would take to go through ten years worth of discs with pet pictures on them ?

I know that, what I don`t understand is why you seem so fixated on refuting what I know about my lad :smt102

They don`t really help much, they show a limited selection of possible, [ mostly extreme ], variations, not every single case, there are all sorts of variations, not every dog with small eyes is pictured there [ not that I would expect to see all possible BC cases on an Aussie site anyway ].

Pod, my vet has seen Defa`s eyes up close and personal during an operation on one of his eyelids, my vet knows small eyes when he see`s them, they were enough for him to comment on specifically after the op he performed.

Why are you so determined not only to disbelieve and belittle what I personally know of my lads parentage but also the observations of a, [ damned good ], veterinary surgeon and George Strain and my lads very experienced and knowledgeable place of Rescue ?
Is it because my lad does`nt fit quite perfectly enough into a neat little genetic box for you on photographic appearance alone or is it something else ?

Pity the KC have never taken steps to prevent merle to merle matings or the subject would`nt even come up, other than `accidental` matings there would be no deaf double merles to be arguing about.

Patch I'm just trying to ascertain if these are two genuine cases of cryptic merle. I do have a particular interest in this, as you must have realised, and wonder why you won't post photos that could solve this.

I'm curious too on the reason for some of your comments and why you should be so determined to label these homozygous merles. You have made contradictory comments.

It does concern me too that novice owners who might have dogs of similar colouring to yours may assume their dogs are double merles, which could lead to unnecessary worry and bad feeling with breeders.

I know whats what with my own dogs. If you can`t / wont/ don`t want to accept that, I`m sorry, but I can`t change what they are to suit other people

I realise you have been fixated particularly on Defa

Ten years worth of discs with hundreds of photos on them of all my pets mixed together...
And to remember which of them were the exact ones I sent off all those years ago ?!
If I could put my finger on them `just like that` after all this time I would be happy to, I wish I could !

It has been solved about my Defa to my satisfaction, years ago. Had I known that I would be asked to provide the same photos I sent to someone else to `prove` something to someone on a forum years later who does`nt feel my word about what I know of my dogs parentage is acceptable I would have kept them neatly filed for that purpose...

For example ?

It does`nt matter what I or anyone else `want` to call them, they simply are what they are :smt102

Again, for example ?

If they don`t buy from breeders who breed **merle to merle they have nothing to worry about.
If they don`t breed their own merle to someone elses merle they have nothing to worry about.
If anyone wants to breed, whatever colour their BC is, so long as they DNA and health test first and get the all clear on everything, they have nothing to worry about.
If they get a rescue which might look like mine, breeding is a no no from rescue dogs anyway so again they would have nothing to worry about.
So why would anyone seeing my dogs worry about their own :smt102

**Matings with reds in which red merles can be hidden visually, now thats another story, but hopefully breeders using reds will DNA test to be sure that they are not breeding from a `hidden` red merle which may be indistinguishable from a solid red just by sight.

And to get back on topic, if the KC were to make DNA and health testing compulsory for every breeding dog of every breed to qualify for registration, and outlaw the registration of any breedings with colour combos known to be problematic, many hereditary conditions would be eliminated in future registered dogs and probably very quickly - including merle to merle related deafness.

Again Patch you've gone into reams of irrelevant hyperbole to avoid the issue.

I see nothing to be gained in continuing this. If you do happen to find some photos that shows their merle patches, or even consider a DNA test, I will of course be very interested

Well if you offered to pay for the DNA test then I'm sure Patch will oblige!
Becky

Hmmm I would consider that... but then, if I'm paying, I'd insist on being present when the DNA is taken... just to be sure you know and then I would see the dogs for myself, so probably no need for DNA. But in the meantime, photos would really help!

Would you consider it Patch? I really am that interested to get this solved. It is a particular area of interest for me and if these two are both cryptic merles that would be very unusual.

To avoid what ? The fact that I know full well what they are ?

Its not me who is fixated on someone elses dog :smt102
I responded on the thread in support of testing being made compulsory for registration, I feel strongly about it because of my dogs.

You would probably say they were fake or someone elses dog, after all you are not prepared to accept my vets knowledge of small eyes when he operates on something reavealing it very noticeably to him up close and personal

Why ? I know what he is, and DNA should be used toward healthy breeding dogs, not timewasting on a nearly 13 year old neutered rescue dog just to satisfy your curiosity because you are convinced I must be lying about my dog for some reason, why can`t you understand that its a subject I feel passionately about because of what my dogs are the result of, to educate people not to buy from merle to merle breeders for heavens sake

How much more insulting would you like to be ?


So you believe that you seeing Defa would obviously result in a far more comprehensive and expert opinion than I, and the others who know whats what with him, could possibly hope to have a clue about...


Its been solved thanks, if it does`nt fit into your belief of what every double merle `should` look like thats really not my problem

I`m not interested in `unusual`, to be frank your attitude toward me about my own dog [ who is my business to know about...], is not making me feel the urge to go through goodness knows how many photos just to satisfy your `curiosity` on something I know for myself, I`m interested in educating people not to buy from merle to merle breeders who turn out deaf and possibly sight impaired double merle pups and hoping for the KC to finally do something to steer unscrupulous breeders away from doing it if only by refusing to register such litters on the breed register.

As for you dismissing my comment about reds as irrelevent, I believe its highly relevent, and DNA testing for them is vital to ensure no inadvertant red merle to merle breeding as red merles can often not be recognised visually by appearing to be solid reds.
If just one person reads it and is going to buy a red collie pup, at least they are aware to ask questions of the breeder if they were not aware before.

Sorry I didn't mean for my post to offend you Patch!
Becky