So glad that the useful info is managing to peek through the distractions, thank you for taking the time to plough through it all education education education, thats what its all about :smt001

There are two ways a merle can be masked. Merle needs a dark pigment base to express, or you don't see it at all. In Border Collies, this is black, brown (BC people call red) blue and lilac. Modifying genes can reduce the expression of the merle pattern so much, that there is very little or none showing. This is the only type of 'cryptic' merle that is possible in your Defa and Silk.

The other type of phantom (or cryptic) is where there is no dark pigment present. This occurs in Australian red and to a lesser extent, sable. If you have normal red merles, they are no more likely to produce cryptics than black merles (known as blue merle) as the modifying genes have no known association with brown or black.

Actually merles can be hidden because the merle gene is an incomplete dominant i.e. it does not affect the pigment 100% so a puppy can be born with just a few merle hairs and you wouldn't know, which is why puppies with a merle parent should all be tested to make sure whether they are merles or not.
Here is a red merle that I produced. As you can see when he was first born hwe was quite dark, then as he got older the merling started to disappear and as an adult you wouldn't have known.



Becky

F` crying out loud, this thread is supposed to be about betterment in breeding in terms of what the KC could do, you started the thread, remember ?!

By insulting my integrity and being patronising of everyone who knows more about my dog than you do ? I`d hate to see what you would say to lower a mood !


The only persons whose peace of mind counts regarding my dogs is my own and I already have that thanks.

And you have ensured by your attitude that it will never come up, full stop, I dont feel the need to `prove` anything to someone who has already been patronising and accusory just because you think you know more about my dog than I do myself.

Thats a good enough reason for me to listen to an established expert in the field, [ George Strain ], and not someone on a forum who seems to have some agenda to be insulting and patronising. I have no need to prove anything to you, and rather than being insulting I have already said I respect how much you seem to know, but in the politest way I can say it, George Strain you are not.



My reaction is one of someone thoroughly hacked off by your attitude to me personally about my dogs, you are pushing my patience quite frankly.
I`ll put it plainly but hopefully politely enough to get it across to you, I know what my dogs are, whether you like it or not I don`t need your `authority` on my dogs.

Small eyes but perfectly functioning.

""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..."

More than just noticeable, less than severe on size.

I did`nt know I had to mention it to you every time I say his name...

The man who knew the parents was an experienced Collie man, he was talking to the rescue people when he spotted Defa. He knows what merles look like. I`m so sorry I did not have the forethought to grill him in advance with specific questions for your benefit just in case you ever wanted to know something years down the line.

Pod, I really am trying hard to be patient but do you seriously think that you are the only person `qualified` to say what a dog is or is not by sight and that anyone else, no matter what their experience, [ and line of work...], is a clueless numpty ? Seriously ? Because thats what you seem to be saying...

Ah lovely photos, excellent examples of cryptics! These are in fact sable merles Becky. The merle pattern is visible when they are young because there is lots of eumelanin (dark) pigment present. Sables are always born dark and typically with sables, the dark pigment fades and the merle pattern disappears along with it. The phaeomelanin (red) pigment left can't support merle.

Nothing to do with incomplete dominance, that's just the nature of the gene. It's the underlying coat colour and modifying genes that control crypticism.

Patch, you vets comment re Def's eyes is quite significant. I just wondered why you didn't mention it when we discussed this particular topic, not so long ago?

Pod, I think enough is enough. You have offended and insulted Patch plenty. She has offered you information, and you have discredited her when you don't actually know her dogs. She has done her own research and knows the problems her dogs have.

You've made your point. Why don't you just leave it at that ?

Well said. Patch does not deserve a grilling like this.

Where would the sable come from? The mother was a tan and white PRT and the father a chocolate dapple Dachshund? I had two shaded reds who cleared out to a red but my understanding is shaded reds are reds carrying the tan pointing gene as shown in griffons.
Becky

My understanding of incomplete dominance is that it doesn't affect the whole pigment. i.e. if it was a complete dominant then all the dark pigment would be merled but as it is haphazardly 'applied' then it is incomplete. Is that not correct?
Becky